So after Nabaviexit we've had TheEaglesExit !!!!!!!
I've been away - you've followed the herd(son) and RN?
won't be long for me I fear BUT not just yet.
Yup, the headlong rush in to No Deal confirmed it, I couldn't disagree with a word David wrote.
What really depressed me was the realisation that if and when Boris Johnson crashes and burns later on this year the party will not return to sanity with someone like Hunt or Stewart, but the party will double down and go for someone like Patel, Baker, or our own Corbyn Andrew Bridgen.
So after Nabaviexit we've had TheEaglesExit !!!!!!!
I've been away - you've followed the herd(son) and RN?
won't be long for me I fear BUT not just yet.
Yup, the headlong rush in to No Deal confirmed it, I couldn't disagree with a word David wrote.
What really depressed me was the realisation that if and when Boris Johnson crashes and burns later on this year the party will not return to sanity with someone like Hunt or Stewart, but the party will double down and go for someone like Patel, Baker, or our own Corbyn Andrew Bridgen.
You missed Mark Francois!
Why hasn’t Francois got a ministerial post?
It says on wiki page that his chairmanship of the ERG makes him chief whip of that grouping. So, I doubt he could do a Government job and the ERG one. Given the purist and ideological fervour or ERG, he is not likely to give that up!
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I would tend to agree. However, were Boris to win a majority on November 1st on 32% of the vote, in such a circumstance, the idea that Brexit would have been "delivered" and everything would be just fine and dandy, is stretching optimism, I reckon.
What’s more, I think it’s not a given that Boris would win a 1 November GE. 1945 anyone? “Oh they’ve done what we needed them to do, let’s vote for someone who will spend more on schools and hospitals.”
Given the EU will likely extend until election day that is unlikely, though yes as 2017 showed the Tories need a clear Brexit division with Labour and the LDs to win and to be the party to get Brexit done, they can probably only win 1 more term given they have been in power for 3 terms already, if this is an austerity election rather than a Brexit election then the Tories are more likely to lose.
However this is more a 1940 general election (taken 9 years into the Tories term just like an autumn general election) as Churchill prepared for war not a 1945 general election (taken 14 years into a Tory led government) when Churchill had won the war
Yougov today has the Tories back up to 23% in Scotland with the SNP on 39%, that is a swing of just 4% from the Tories to the SNP since 2017 meaning the Tories would hold 7 out of their 13 Scottish seats ie a majority.
SLAB though have slumped to just 12%, below the LDs on 14% and would lose all their Scottish seats to the SNP bar Ian Murray's in Edinburgh South
That would mean the Tories have 6 less seats which means Boris is doing worse than TM and further away from an overall majority. A bit embarrassing for Boris! That's before tactical voting is taken into account which will break UNS...
No as the same poll has the Tories gaining at least 31 seats from Labour across GB so even with 6 less seats in Scotland that is still a net Tory gain of 25 and they only need 8 more seats on 2017 for a Tory majority
You remind me of Adolf Hitler marshalling ghost armies to vanquish the enemy! To be honest I wonder if the purpose of Boris Johnson is not to lead the Tories to victory but to minimise its defeat? Of course Tories would welcome a surprise victory but I suspect holding enough seats to mount a challenge a few years later against a several party Government is as good as it gets for the Tories under Boris...
On today's Yougov poll there is no doubt the Tories will be largest party, Labour would even fall below 200 seats, it would need a Labour and SNP and LD and PC and Green Government at least to stop it, which I doubt Boris would be too bothered by, even if he falls fractionally short of a majority he would still be the strongest force at Westminster
Yes, and it's well known fact that being the larget party - but lacking a majority - ensures strong and stable government.
Well certainly more than a 5 party Government and Boris would win a small majority on today's Yougov anyway
Do you really think that would be the case after 5 weeks of Nigel shouting "you promised we would have left by October 31st" for an election on November 7th / 14th when we are still in the EU...
No as Boris will not extend beyond October 31st himself and can pitch himself against other MPs who try to do so
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I would tend to agree. However, were Boris to win a majority on November 1st on 32% of the vote, in such a circumstance, the idea that Brexit would have been "delivered" and everything would be just fine and dandy, is stretching optimism, I reckon.
What’s more, I think it’s not a given that Boris would win a 1 November GE. 1945 anyone? “Oh they’ve done what we needed them to do, let’s vote for someone who will spend more on schools and hospitals.”
Given the EU will likely extend until election day that is unlikely, though yes as 2017 showed the Tories need a clear Brexit division with Labour and the LDs to win and to be the party to get Brexit done, they can probably only win 1 more term given they have been in power for 3 terms already, if this is an austerity election rather than a Brexit election then the Tories are more likely to lose.
However this is more a 1940 general election (taken 9 years into the Tories term just like an autumn general election) as Churchill prepared for war not a 1945 general election (taken 14 years into a Tory led government) when Churchill had won the war
Yougov today has the Tories back up to 23% in Scotland with the SNP on 39%, that is a swing of just 4% from the Tories to the SNP since 2017 meaning the Tories would hold 7 out of their 13 Scottish seats ie a majority.
SLAB though have slumped to just 12%, below the LDs on 14% and would lose all their Scottish seats to the SNP bar Ian Murray's in Edinburgh South.
The LDs meanwhile would gain Fife North East from the SNP
That's a bit surprising. Anything like that in 2021 would mean the pro-Indy majority in the Scottish Parliament would be kaput. 5 more years of Nicola as FM leading a minority govt with no prospect of an IndyRef to keep the troops happy. Not a pretty sight come 2026!
Yup could even be a Davidson Government propped up by LDs, Tories plus LDs on 37%, just 2% behind SNP on 39%
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I would tend to agree. However, were Boris to win a majority on November 1st on 32% of the vote, in such a circumstance, the idea that Brexit would have been "delivered" and everything would be just fine and dandy, is stretching optimism, I reckon.
What’s more, I think it’s not a given that Boris would win a 1 November GE. 1945 anyone? “Oh they’ve done what we needed them to do, let’s vote for someone who will spend more on schools and hospitals.”
Given the EU will likely extend until election day that is unlikely, though yes as 2017 showed the Tories need a clear Brexit division with Labour and the LDs to win and to be the party to get Brexit done, they can probably only win 1 more term given they have been in power for 3 terms already, if this is an austerity election rather than a Brexit election then the Tories are more likely to lose.
However this is more a 1940 general election (taken 9 years into the Tories term just like an autumn general election) as Churchill prepared for war not a 1945 general election (taken 14 years into a Tory led government) when Churchill had won the war
The UK did not have a General election in 1940!
The point is Churchill would have won it if it had
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
So after Nabaviexit we've had TheEaglesExit !!!!!!!
I've been away - you've followed the herd(son) and RN?
won't be long for me I fear BUT not just yet.
Yup, the headlong rush in to No Deal confirmed it, I couldn't disagree with a word David wrote.
What really depressed me was the realisation that if and when Boris Johnson crashes and burns later on this year the party will not return to sanity with someone like Hunt or Stewart, but the party will double down and go for someone like Patel, Baker, or our own Corbyn Andrew Bridgen.
You missed Mark Francois!
Why hasn’t Francois got a ministerial post?
It says on wiki page that his chairmanship of the ERG makes him chief whip of that grouping. So, I doubt he could do a Government job and the ERG one. Given the purist and ideological fervour or ERG, he is not likely to give that up!
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Redwood is a lier he ignores the possibility of an alternative PM. They get away with bloody murder and all they want to do is protect their hidden financial assets. The good thing is he may well lose his seat.
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
That ship sailed with the failure to implement the referendum result.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
Shouldn't we be looking at the 1975 Australian precedent?
Boris Johnson the Gough Whitlam de nos jours?
The Queen has no problems effectively sacking a Prime Minister?
Note this happened three years before I was born, so I might be talking shite
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I am sorry Philip but that is just nuts. It is delusional to think that we would have a "clean exit". I have argued the case that the consequences of departure with or without a deal are being grossly overstated and still believe that but to avoid perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost is, well, nuts.
In an ideal world yes it is nuts, I completely and 100% agree.
But a deal offering "perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost" has never been on the table.
The backstop is political guff. It has to go. You may be OK with that guff - others are too - but for those of us who aren't which now includes the Prime Minister . . . if the EU aren't prepared to drop the political guff then what else are we supposed to do? We can't force them to give us a better offer.
Have you read what the backstop actually is or have you based your opinion on what the papers say?
The clue is in the name. We have the entire transition period to come up with something better. And if we don’t, well, how exactly do the EU hold us to it? We’d have the option of a no deal situation then.
We won't have the option of a no deal situation legally because we'll be stuck in the backstop.
I'm not going to be dishonest and say lets sign this while having zero intention of honouring the agreement. That's not a solution.
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
The ^&$%ing twat that schemed his way into Downing Street on the back of a campaign explicitly targeting immigrants, has announced that he will relax immigration controls as his next cunning plan.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
Shouldn't we be looking at the 1975 Australian precedent?
Boris Johnson the Gough Whitlam de nos jours?
The Queen has no problems effectively sacking a Prime Minister?
Note this happened three years before I was born, so I might be talking shite
I may be wrong here (please do correct me if I am) but wasn’t the 1975 crisis around the failure to secure supply, and when an alternative government could prove that it could, this was the reason for the dismissal. Although I think it was unclear it could secure supply so whether that was constitutionally proper is arguable. Again, please do correct me if I’m wrong.
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I would tend to agree. However, were Boris to win a majority on November 1st on 32% of the vote, in such a circumstance, the idea that Brexit would have been "delivered" and everything would be just fine and dandy, is stretching optimism, I reckon.
What’s more, I think it’s not a given that Boris would win a 1 November GE. 1945 anyone? “Oh they’ve done what we needed them to do, let’s vote for someone who will spend more on schools and hospitals.”
Given the EU will likely extend until election day that is unlikely, though yes as 2017 showed the Tories need a clear Brexit division with Labour and the LDs to win and to be the party to get Brexit done, they can probably only win 1 more term given they have been in power for 3 terms already, if this is an austerity election rather than a Brexit election then the Tories are more likely to lose.
However this is more a 1940 general election (taken 9 years into the Tories term just like an autumn general election) as Churchill prepared for war not a 1945 general election (taken 14 years into a Tory led government) when Churchill had won the war
The UK did not have a General election in 1940!
The point is Churchill would have won it if it had
Who knows? People in 1945 thought Churchill would win as the victor of WW2 and yet Labour won a landslide! It is entirely possible that in a GE, Labour or the Liberals may have sought a mandate to sue for peace. Not much in the way of polling back then to make a fantasy House of Commons...
The fact remains instead of seeking a mandate, the parties worked together in the National interest. I don't think Boris is remotely capable of Churchillian leadership or the Conservative party governing in the interests of the whole UK when they prioritise tax cuts for the rich because they think the rich need more money...
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
But is it unconstitutional?
It is the legal default. It is the natural consequence of the Article 50 Act.
It has been pre-announced that HMG intend to leave the EU on 31st, deal or no deal.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
Shouldn't we be looking at the 1975 Australian precedent?
Boris Johnson the Gough Whitlam de nos jours?
The Queen has no problems effectively sacking a Prime Minister?
Note this happened three years before I was born, so I might be talking shite
I may be wrong here (please do correct me if I am) but wasn’t the 1975 crisis around the failure to secure supply, and when an alternative government could prove that it could, this was the reason for the dismissal. Although I think it was unclear it could secure supply so whether that was constitutionally proper is arguable. Again, please do correct me if I’m wrong.
I was more thinking about this
Whitlam's Labor government had been elected in 1972 with a small majority in the House of Representatives, but with the Senate balance of power being held by the Democratic Labor Party who usually supported the Liberal-Country Opposition. Another election in 1974 resulted in little change. While the Whitlam Government introduced many new policies and programs, it was also rocked by scandals and political miscalculations. In October 1975, the Opposition used its control of the Senate to defer passage of appropriation bills (needed to finance government expenditure), that had been passed by the House of Representatives. The Opposition stated that they would continue their stance unless Whitlam called an election for the House of Representatives, and urged Kerr to dismiss Whitlam unless he agreed to their demand. Whitlam believed that Kerr would not dismiss him, and Kerr did nothing to disabuse Whitlam of this notion.
On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he went to seek Kerr's approval of the election, Kerr instead dismissed him as Prime Minister and shortly thereafter installed Fraser in his place. Acting quickly before all ALP parliamentarians became aware of the change of government, Fraser and his allies were able to secure passage of the appropriation bills, and Kerr dissolved Parliament for a double dissolution election. Fraser and his government were returned with a massive majority in the election held the following month.
Yougov today has the Tories back up to 23% in Scotland with the SNP on 39%, that is a swing of just 4% from the Tories to the SNP since 2017 meaning the Tories would hold 7 out of their 13 Scottish seats ie a majority.
SLAB though have slumped to just 12%, below the LDs on 14% and would lose all their Scottish seats to the SNP bar Ian Murray's in Edinburgh South.
The LDs meanwhile would gain Fife North East from the SNP
That's a bit surprising. Anything like that in 2021 would mean the pro-Indy majority in the Scottish Parliament would be kaput. 5 more years of Nicola as FM leading a minority govt with no prospect of an IndyRef to keep the troops happy. Not a pretty sight come 2026!
Yup could even be a Davidson Government propped up by LDs, Tories plus LDs on 37%, just 2% behind SNP on 39%
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
But is it unconstitutional?
It is the legal default. It is the natural consequence of the Article 50 Act.
It has been pre-announced that HMG I tend to leave the EU on 31st, deal or no deal.
You asked if it is against precedent. I explained why it is. Now you ask me a different question.
The government was not elected on its current policy. The date of 31 October did not figure in the 2017 election. If the current government is defeated in a vote of no confidence, you have a Prime Minister who was not put before the national electorate who does not command a majority in Parliament whose policy has no mandate of any kind, seeking to impose it outside the scope of established precedent. So yes, I’d call that unconstitutional.
TSE - Hmm, yes, it’s certainly a murky one I’ll give you that. I guess it comes down to whether the monarch is allowed to be pro-active in seeking a particular policy action, and whether that is limited to securing supply or not (which is the natural consequence of governing) and whether that overrides the advice of the government. With Brexit, this would be a policy decision outside of the usual constitutional status quo. I think it’s quite rightly considered a controversial move but yes certainly food for thought.
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
Not convinced. Parliament has legislated for leaving, it has failed to agree with a moderate deal, and has signally failed to provide an alternative. Article 50 is EU law. BTW, none of this has happened yet, nor will I I think. A VONC is now very unlikely.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
But is it unconstitutional?
It is the legal default. It is the natural consequence of the Article 50 Act.
It has been pre-announced that HMG I tend to leave the EU on 31st, deal or no deal.
You asked if it is against precedent. I explained why it is. Now you ask me a different question.
The government was not elected on its current policy. The date of 31 October did not figure in the 2017 election. If the current government is defeated in a vote of no confidence, you have a Prime Minister who was not put before the national electorate who does not command a majority in Parliament whose policy has no mandate of any kind, seeking to impose it outside the scope of established precedent. So yes, I’d call that unconstitutional.
The ^&$%ing twat that schemed his way into Downing Street on the back of a campaign explicitly targeting immigrants, has announced that he will relax immigration controls as his next cunning plan.
I am sure the LDs will be grateful that a core voter such as yourself (voting LD in 2017 when the LDs got 7% and the Tories got 42%) will be voting LD again at the next general election
Unlike you, my vote in 2017 helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
You lose seats to the opponents of the Tories, I help them gain them.
Even in Hallam 23% voted for the Tory candidate Ian Walker at the last general election and we held the district seat the LDs were targeting in Epping this year
I correctly recognised the Tories weren't going to win Hallam so swapped my vote with a Lib Dem in North East Derbyshire to help the Tories gain the seat.
Tell me about your council seat you personally fought (and lost) in August 2017.
So you still voted LD then in a seat the Tories held until 1997.
I will tell you about the last district seat I fought in 2018 certainly when I increased the Tory vote to 554 from the 420 the Tories got the last time the seat was up in 2014
It is twenty seven years since the Tories last won Hallam, things have changed.
But thanks for confirming you keep on losing seats/elections, personally I reckon the reason you keep on losing is the people in Essex don't want to vote for a diehard remainer like you.
This is magnificent. Tories taking the piss out of each other can only be good for the country.
HYUFD isn't a Tory.
In 2001 he voted for Ken Clarke, the guy who wanted to take us in to the Euro, and in 2005 he voted the David Davis, the civil liberties guy, HYUFD is a Lib Dem, that's even before you factor in that he voted for Remain.
How about cutting out the personal attacks. You demean the site.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
Not convinced. Parliament has legislated for leaving, it has failed to agree with a moderate deal, and has signally failed to provide an alternative. Article 50 is EU law. BTW, none of this has happened yet, nor will I I think. A VONC is now very unlikely.
Right now I think the single most likely outcome is a panicky revocation of the Article 50 notice, perhaps in the 14 day vote of no confidence period. Boris Johnson threatening to disregard democratic norms effectively forces his opponents in that direction.
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
The ^&$%ing twat that schemed his way into Downing Street on the back of a campaign explicitly targeting immigrants, has announced that he will relax immigration controls as his next cunning plan.
No, he will replace free movement from the EU with a skills based migration system
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
I would also say that I don’t think purdah rules prevent the government from taking the UK out of the EU in an election period. It is a passive occurrence and the legal default. The government has already pre-announced that it intends for the UK to leave on that date and assuming no alternative government is found, it would still be the government on exit day.
Whether it SHOULD do that is another matter, but I don’t actually see anything constitutionally improper with it, unless someone can enlighten me?
I would tend to agree. However, were Boris to win a majority on November .
What’s more, I think it’s not a given that Boris would win a 1 November GE. 1945 anyone? “Oh they’ve done what we needed them to do, let’s vote for someone who will spend more on schools and hospitals.”
Given the EU will likely extend until election day that is unlikely, though yes as 2017 showed the Tories need a clear Brexit division with Labour and the LDs to win and to be the party to get Brexit done, they can probably only win 1 more term given they have been in power for 3 terms already, if this is an austerity election rather than a Brexit election then the Tories are more likely to lose.
However this is more a 1940 general election (taken 9 years into the Tories term just like an autumn general election) as Churchill prepared for war not a 1945 general election (taken 14 years into a Tory led government) when Churchill had won the war
The UK did not have a General election in 1940!
The point is Churchill would have won it if it had
Who knows? People in 1945 thought Churchill would win as the victor of WW2 and yet Labour won a landslide! It is entirely possible that in a GE, Labour or the Liberals may have sought a mandate to sue for peace. Not much in the way of polling back then to make a fantasy House of Commons...
The fact remains instead of seeking a mandate, the parties worked together in the National interest. I don't think Boris is remotely capable of Churchillian leadership or the Conservative party governing in the interests of the whole UK when they prioritise tax cuts for the rich because they think the rich need more money...
WW2 had ended in 1945 in Europe, in 1940 Britain was facing Nazi invasion, Churchill would obviously have won.
Boris is also pushing tax cuts and more money for the NHS rather than May's Dementia tax and 'no magic money tree' as well as committing to deliver Brexit
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
If you don't want to risk October 31st falling during GE purdah, don't call a chuffing VONC.
The ^&$%ing twat that schemed his way into Downing Street on the back of a campaign explicitly targeting immigrants, has announced that he will relax immigration controls as his next cunning plan.
Today's Yougov poll implies a 16% swing from Labour to LibDem - which would result in five gains at Labour expense - Sheffield Hallam - Leeds NW - Cambridge - Bermondsey - and Burnley. In reality, I suspect that only Hallam would be likely to fall.
Yes, I am sure the US is going to give us everything we want and comparatively a better deal than the one we have the EU? In the real world they are going to screw us relentlessly for every concession due to the 5:1 or 6:1 bigger economic weight they have comparatively..
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
Under the FTPA HM decides the date of election on the recommendation of the PM. The statute does not give HM a discretion (FWIW) - it doesn't say that HM must have due regard or whatever. The wording appears absolute. HM's safe course is to stick to the legislation and of course her own courts can decide whether the recommendation of the PM was rational/lawful. HM can and of course will keep out of it.
Anyway, it won't happen like that. Chances are a tweaked deal will get through. And because Boris plainly under the clear words of the FTPA can defer an election, there won't be a VONC.
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
If you don't want to risk October 31st falling during GE purdah, don't call a chuffing VONC.
I agree , makes sense. Why Labour Mps would want an election with current polls is a mystery.
No we take a clean exit because we can and its the only option available to us that respects our wishes. If there is hurt so be it. Exercising hurts but the motto there is no pain, no gain.
I am sorry Philip but that is just nuts. It is delusional to think that we would have a "clean exit". I have argued the case that the consequences of departure with or without a deal are being grossly overstated and still believe that but to avoid perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost is, well, nuts.
In an ideal world yes it is nuts, I completely and 100% agree.
But a deal offering "perfectly sensible arrangements with our major trading partners giving us many of the advantages of membership without all the political guff and with minimal cost" has never been on the table.
The backstop is political guff. It has to go. You may be OK with that guff - others are too - but for those of us who aren't which now includes the Prime Minister . . . if the EU aren't prepared to drop the political guff then what else are we supposed to do? We can't force them to give us a better offer.
Have you read what the backstop actually is or have you based your opinion on what the papers say?
The clue is in the name. We have the entire transition period to come up with something better. And if we don’t, well, how exactly do the EU hold us to it? We’d have the option of a no deal situation then.
We won't have the option of a no deal situation legally because we'll be stuck in the backstop.
I'm not going to be dishonest and say lets sign this while having zero intention of honouring the agreement. That's not a solution.
We would honour the agreement so long as they honoured their side.
Your entire hatred of the backstop is based on assuming the EU is not sincere in wanting either an FTA or a technical solution. (And if they weren't, we would be quite within our rights to leave.)
Not only that, but you then go on to propose breaking existing treaty commitments under the GATT 1974 and 1994 Treaties. Are those treaties not sacred too?
Yes highly skilled migrants, it was bar and cafe workers and taxi drivers and hospitality and construction and factory and shop workers Leavers wanted fewer of not scientists, scientists are not competition for the average Hartlepool, Thurrock or Barnsley Leave voter and their wages
Yes highly skilled migrants, it was bar and cafe workers and taxi drivers and hospitality and construction and factory and shop workers Leavers wanted fewer of not scientists, scientists are not competition for the average Hartlepool, Thurrock or Barnsley Leave voter
It's almost like having control of our borders allows us to choose more immigrants with skills we need and fewer with skills (or lack of skills) we don't... funny that!
Yes, I am sure the US is going to give us everything we want and comparatively a better deal than the one we have the EU? In the real world they are going to screw us relentlessly for every concession due to the 5:1 or 6:1 bigger economic weight they have comparatively..
Not a good deal for UK taxpayers who pay for the NHS or the recipients of prescribed treatments! This is just crazy...
How does a free trade deal oblige the NHS to ditch its current suppliers and accept ones which are five times more expensive?
Because the US see restrictions on medicines on grounds of effectiveness or value for money to be restrictions on trade. So NICE etc will be forbidden by any US trade deal.
Yes highly skilled migrants, it was bar and cafe workers and taxi drivers and hospitality and construction and factory and shop workers Leavers wanted fewer of not scientists, scientists are not competition for the average Hartlepool, Thurrock or Barnsley Leave voter
It's almost like having control of our borders allows us to choose more immigrants with skills we need and fewer with skills (or lack of skills) we don't... funny that!
Exactly, we need more highly skilled doctors and nurses, scientists and engineers not more bar workers, factory and warehouse and building site workers
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
Under the FTPA HM decides the date of election on the recommendation of the PM. The statute does not give HM a discretion (FWIW) - it doesn't say that HM must have due regard or whatever. The wording appears absolute. HM's safe course is to stick to the legislation and of course her own courts can decide whether the recommendation of the PM was rational/lawful. HM can and of course will keep out of it.
Anyway, it won't happen like that. Chances are a tweaked deal will get through. And because Boris plainly under the clear words of the FTPA can defer an election, there won't be a VONC.
My view is that Parliament will take each step singly.
So it will pass a vote of no confidence, then it will panic. Exactly what it will do in the panic I’m not sure, but it will do something. It is likely to be highly unpredictable.
Yes, I am sure the US is going to give us everything we want and comparatively a better deal than the one we have the EU? In the real world they are going to screw us relentlessly for every concession due to the 5:1 or 6:1 bigger economic weight they have comparatively..
Not a good deal for UK taxpayers who pay for the NHS or the recipients of prescribed treatments! This is just crazy...
How does a free trade deal oblige the NHS to ditch its current suppliers and accept ones which are five times more expensive?
Because the US see restrictions on medicines on grounds of effectiveness or value for money to be restrictions on trade. So NICE etc will be forbidden by any US trade deal.
Did they do this for TPP before they pulled out? Genuine question.
It seems to me that there are two countries and two sets of countries developing common standards that could win out globally:
I remain mystified as to quite what U.K. objectives from a trade deal with the US will be? And what they will be prepared to concede to achieve them? Have any of the leading Brexiteers provided much illumination on this?
They seem remarkably unforthcoming and incurious when it comes to details of any kind on any topic really.
I think "clueless"is the word you are searching for.
We would honour the agreement so long as they honoured their side.
Your entire hatred of the backstop is based on assuming the EU is not sincere in wanting either an FTA or a technical solution. (And if they weren't, we would be quite within our rights to leave.)
Not only that, but you then go on to propose breaking existing treaty commitments under the GATT 1974 and 1994 Treaties. Are those treaties not sacred too?
No, my hatred of the backstop is that it is unacceptable to have another countries Parliament set laws our Parliament should be setting, when we have no MPs/MEPs in their Parliament. No ifs, no buts.
I don't propose breaking any existing commitments.
If we can get cheap pork from USA then why would we not want that?
He says that like its a price not a benefit.
Are you serious? The objective of free trade deals is to reduce external barriers for your home producers. Offering access to your own market is your bargaining chip.
We would honour the agreement so long as they honoured their side.
Your entire hatred of the backstop is based on assuming the EU is not sincere in wanting either an FTA or a technical solution. (And if they weren't, we would be quite within our rights to leave.)
Not only that, but you then go on to propose breaking existing treaty commitments under the GATT 1974 and 1994 Treaties. Are those treaties not sacred too?
No, my hatred of the backstop is that it is unacceptable to have another countries Parliament set laws our Parliament should be setting, when we have no MPs/MEPs in their Parliament. No ifs, no buts.
I don't propose breaking any existing commitments.
What's your view on Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
Under the FTPA HM decides the date of election on the recommendation of the PM. The statute does not give HM a discretion (FWIW) - it doesn't say that HM must have due regard or whatever. The wording appears absolute. HM's safe course is to stick to the legislation and of course her own courts can decide whether the recommendation of the PM was rational/lawful. HM can and of course will keep out of it.
Anyway, it won't happen like that. Chances are a tweaked deal will get through. And because Boris plainly under the clear words of the FTPA can defer an election, there won't be a VONC.
My view is that Parliament will take each step singly.
So it will pass a vote of no confidence, then it will panic. Exactly what it will do in the panic I’m not sure, but it will do something. It is likely to be highly unpredictable.
Passing a VONC is a dangerous move. It gives them just 2 weeks to find a solution, if Boris can stall them for 2 weeks its over. If there's no VONC they've got 8 weeks to find a solution.
If we can get cheap pork from USA then why would we not want that?
He says that like its a price not a benefit.
Are you serious? The objective of free trade deals is to reduce external barriers for your home producers. Offering access to your own market is your bargaining chip.
Yes its a chip and its a chip we should use. Plus its not a price its a benefit for consumers - instead of paying over the odds for pork we can get it cheaper.
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch can advise, but constitutionally I think would have to defer. In pretty much every situation where a monarch has advised a PM against a course of action, but they have been determined to do the contrary, the Crown has had to roll over.
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
If you don't want to risk October 31st falling during GE purdah, don't call a chuffing VONC.
I agree , makes sense. Why Labour Mps would want an election with current polls is a mystery.
Comres has Labour ahead! Opinium pretty neck and neck.
We would honour the agreement so long as they honoured their side.
Your entire hatred of the backstop is based on assuming the EU is not sincere in wanting either an FTA or a technical solution. (And if they weren't, we would be quite within our rights to leave.)
Not only that, but you then go on to propose breaking existing treaty commitments under the GATT 1974 and 1994 Treaties. Are those treaties not sacred too?
No, my hatred of the backstop is that it is unacceptable to have another countries Parliament set laws our Parliament should be setting, when we have no MPs/MEPs in their Parliament. No ifs, no buts.
I don't propose breaking any existing commitments.
What's your view on Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
Not much of one TBH. AFAIK its a final appeal court for a few territories that have chosen to remain under its purview. That's their choice. Any of them that wanted to be independent are welcome to leave it and quite right too.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
But is it unconstitutional?
It is the legal default. It is the natural consequence of the Article 50 Act.
It has been pre-announced that HMG I tend to leave the EU on 31st, deal or no deal.
You asked if it is against precedent. I explained why it is. Now you ask me a different question.
The government was not elected on its current policy. The date of 31 October did not figure in the 2017 election. If the current government is defeated in a vote of no confidence, you have a Prime Minister who was not put before the national electorate who does not command a majority in Parliament whose policy has no mandate of any kind, seeking to impose it outside the scope of established precedent. So yes, I’d call that unconstitutional.
Thank God! That was the whole point of my header this morning. I’m glad I’m not alone.
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
Under the FTPA HM decides the date of election on the recommendation of the PM. The statute does not give HM a discretion (FWIW) - it doesn't say that HM must have due regard or whatever. The wording appears absolute. HM's safe course is to stick to the legislation and of course her own courts can decide whether the recommendation of the PM was rational/lawful. HM can and of course will keep out of it.
Anyway, it won't happen like that. Chances are a tweaked deal will get through. And because Boris plainly under the clear words of the FTPA can defer an election, there won't be a VONC.
My view is that Parliament will take each step singly.
So it will pass a vote of no confidence, then it will panic. Exactly what it will do in the panic I’m not sure, but it will do something. It is likely to be highly unpredictable.
Passing a VONC is a dangerous move. It gives them just 2 weeks to find a solution, if Boris can stall them for 2 weeks its over. If there's no VONC they've got 8 weeks to find a solution.
Technically they've got up to 5 and a bit weeks to find a solution, then two weeks to implement it. It won't be enough, though. Alastair is entirely correct.
Do you think Conservative MPs from rural seats would welcome US agricultural products coming into the UK tariff free?
I ask this, because the Conservative Party doesn't actually have much of a majority, and it's by no means clear that the DUP, who have lots of farmers as members, will be keen either.
Specifically, do you think those Conservative MPs with a long history of opposing GM crops, such as Zac Goldsmith, will now be in favour?
I’m afraid no one wants to discus tariff issues on here I’ve tried for three days to get a discussion going because I want to understand the issues involved.
Yes, I am sure the US is going to give us everything we want and comparatively a better deal than the one we have the EU? In the real world they are going to screw us relentlessly for every concession due to the 5:1 or 6:1 bigger economic weight they have comparatively..
Yes highly skilled migrants, it was bar and cafe workers and taxi drivers and hospitality and construction and factory and shop workers Leavers wanted fewer of not scientists, scientists are not competition for the average Hartlepool, Thurrock or Barnsley Leave voter and their
I wonder how many EU citizens there are working in Hartlepool coffee shops dragging down the wages of local baristas.
On topic, a good spot. The temptation for the Dems to use the process of impeachment as the punishment, timed so that the Senate won't hear it before the 2020 election, must be stronger than 5.7 suggests.
On the Meeks/12 discussion, no-deal wouldn't be the imposition of a policy decision so much as a legislative default and compliance with a treaty obligation. Can anyone give examples of times HMG has sought during election purdah to amend not only domestic legislation but international treaty operation, even if it is 'only' a commencement provision?
I think a similar argument runs for the constitutionality question. We should start from the premise that nobody needs a mandate for inertia, especially where that inertia is of the operation of a recent Act. We know Pmt has voted to serve an A50 notice in the knowledge of A50 contents, and has voted to give itself veto on a WA, then voted the WA down three times. Inertia, I'm sure we'd all agree, leads us to no deal. No further mandate is required.
By contrast, you'd have to look pretty hard to find a precedent for a PM who isn't a party leader, or even in the largest party, to come to power other than by election and then change such a crucial policy direction. And they would certainly have no mandate to revoke or call another referendum. I'd argue they could extend constitutionally, as that is an exec power and any legislative authority to do so would be negative SI work.
On a betting point, has anyone done a big spreadsheet with how many MPs would support any particular MP in a GONU? I realise as I type that this requires a third of a million pieces of data, so probably not.
Any British worker can do that, you do not need to be very highly skilled to do those jobs
As you pointed out, there will be fewer of those jobs for British workers.
Win, win.
Not necessarily but certainly higher wages for British workers with a lower supply of low and medium skilled workers to meet demand for low and medium skilled jobs
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
Under the FTPA HM decides the date of election on the recommendation of the PM. The statute does not give HM a discretion (FWIW) - it doesn't say that HM must have due regard or whatever. The wording appears absolute. HM's safe course is to stick to the legislation and of course her own courts can decide whether the recommendation of the PM was rational/lawful. HM can and of course will keep out of it.
Anyway, it won't happen like that. Chances are a tweaked deal will get through. And because Boris plainly under the clear words of the FTPA can defer an election, there won't be a VONC.
My view is that Parliament will take each step singly.
So it will pass a vote of no confidence, then it will panic. Exactly what it will do in the panic I’m not sure, but it will do something. It is likely to be highly unpredictable.
Passing a VONC is a dangerous move. It gives them just 2 weeks to find a solution, if Boris can stall them for 2 weeks its over. If there's no VONC they've got 8 weeks to find a solution.
Technically they've got up to 5 and a bit weeks to find a solution, then two weeks to implement it. It won't be enough, though. Alastair is entirely correct.
If its not enough then we leave no deal.
My point though is that even if all you are seeking is an extension, there will be 8 weeks to get an extension. If there is a VONC then there will be 2 weeks to get one.
If there's no extension or alternative solution after 2 weeks its Game Over, Parliament has dissolved itself and now is utterly powerless. Only the executive will exist anymore.
I think a No Deal Brexit mid election is the way to guarantee a crisis. Not wise.
I think that HM and her advisors would recommend an October date, and it would be hard to refuse.
The monarch
There has seldom been a matter of such import. All this talk of the Queen getting involved in politics. She's the Head of State. It is what we pay her for.
It is extraordinary that one of the two party leaders is Jeremy Corbyn and he is not the one determined to cause a crisis for the monarchy.
There isn't going to be a crisis for the monarchy. The monarchy is just fine thanks. the crisis is for our political party configuration, FPTP, the FTPA and the incompetence of our political class.
You don’t think a momentous decision that will inevitably alienate one half or the other of the population will cause them problems?
To be honest, no. I think the monarchy could easily end up more popular than ever. I can't imagine a time when sentiment is less in favour of a politicised Head of State. (And I don't think Mr Trump has helped the republican cause much.) But for the political realm, yes. Unless something like TMs deal goes through your fears are right. It will cause everyone else problems.
If Boris Johnson goes outside precedent, the queen sitting on her hands will be a political decision too. She is the person who has the responsibility of deciding whether to enforce precedent.
What is the precedent Boris is going against? I don’t think it’s not resigning. If it’s calling a GE for after Brexit, I think there’s a good chance you can argue it’s fully constitutional (although IMHO divisive and a bad decision for the country).
Imposing a long term policy decision after losing a vote of no confidence during the election period by the selection of the election date would certainly be against precedent.
If you don't want to risk October 31st falling during GE purdah, don't call a chuffing VONC.
I agree , makes sense. Why Labour Mps would want an election with current polls is a mystery.
Corbyn has stated that he wants a VONC. Since when has he been swayed by polls?
Yes highly skilled migrants, it was bar and cafe workers and taxi drivers and hospitality and construction and factory and shop workers Leavers wanted fewer of not scientists, scientists are not competition for the average Hartlepool, Thurrock or Barnsley Leave voter and their
I wonder how many EU citizens there are working in Hartlepool coffee shops dragging down the wages of local baristas.
Yep - it's remarkable how white a lot of (left behind) leave areas are.
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
Under the FTPA HM decides the date of election on the recommendation of the PM. The statute does not give HM a discretion (FWIW) - it doesn't say that HM must have due regard or whatever. The wording appears absolute. HM's safe course is to stick to the legislation and of course her own courts can decide whether the recommendation of the PM was rational/lawful. HM can and of course will keep out of it.
Anyway, it won't happen like that. Chances are a tweaked deal will get through. And because Boris plainly under the clear words of the FTPA can defer an election, there won't be a VONC.
My view is that Parliament will take each step singly.
So it will pass a vote of no confidence, then it will panic. Exactly what it will do in the panic I’m not sure, but it will do something. It is likely to be highly unpredictable.
Passing a VONC is a dangerous move. It gives them just 2 weeks to find a solution, if Boris can stall them for 2 weeks its over. If there's no VONC they've got 8 weeks to find a solution.
Got a feeling we are going to have to wait and see.
First off the Queen isn't going to get involved in anything. It would be the end of the monarchy.
If anyone is going to do anything it will be a politician.
Second, what the politicians decide to do will be according to the precedent and protocol.
There is no precedent. The FTPA is only eight years old, and this has never happened in that time.
I hear you but HMQ is not going to get involved meaningfully
I imagine that the Palace has ways of making Her Majesty's feelings known without phoning a Sun journalist. If Boris's time is up, he'll be reeled in one way or another.
Yes highly skilled migrants, it was bar and cafe workers and taxi drivers and hospitality and construction and factory and shop workers Leavers wanted fewer of not scientists, scientists are not competition for the average Hartlepool, Thurrock or Barnsley Leave voter and their wages
Actually, I think higher skilled migrants are resented more, as they are perceived to inhibit the upward social mobility of indigenous Britons. The good folk of Hartlepool don't want to be the skivies for middle class foreigners in their own land.
Mr Meeks, I’d call it divisive and undemocratic. I wouldn’t call it unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve set out. As for precedent, I’m not sure there IS a precedent where something so seismic is the legal default and takes place in an election period, so yes literally I think it is without precedent, but I dont believe that just because it hasn’t happened before it means that it’s by definition unconstitutional
As I said, whatever the Queen decided in those circumstances would cause huge ructions.
Under the FTPA HM decides the date of election on the recommendation of the PM. The statute does not give HM a discretion (FWIW) - it doesn't say that HM must have due regard or whatever. The wording appears absolute. HM's safe course is to stick to the legislation and of course her own courts can decide whether the recommendation of the PM was rational/lawful. HM can and of course will keep out of it.
Anyway, it won't happen like that. Chances are a tweaked deal will get through. And because Boris plainly under the clear words of the FTPA can defer an election, there won't be a VONC.
My view is that Parliament will take each step singly.
So it will pass a vote of no confidence, then it will panic. Exactly what it will do in the panic I’m not sure, but it will do something. It is likely to be highly unpredictable.
How can the Commons do anything to affect the course of events *unless* a majority of MPs can be found to back an alternative Prime Minister?
Unless at least some Tory rebels - as well as everybody else besides the Tory loyalists and the DUP, including various ex-Labour "never Corbyn" types - can be persuaded to install Jeremy Corbyn as PM, then there is no other alternative. Because no alternative to Corbyn will be backed by Corbyn, and he has enough hardcore supporters on his own benches to stymie a Labour rebellion of any size.
The Commons can't pass legislation to unilaterally extend the A50 deadline, because it also needs the agreement of the EU27 and - if my understanding is correct - the only acceptable interlocutor between the UK and the European Council would be either the head of Government or the head of State. Boris Johnson remains acting head of Government in the event of a VoNC until a replacement can command the confidence of the House - so the only option that leaves MPs with is to attempt to command the Queen to do their dirty work for them.
HM is, of course, a constitutional monarch whose position is conventionally interpreted as being apolitical, so the Palace would presumably be both inclined and entitled to refuse were such a daft request to be made. Then what?
No, he will replace free movement from the EU with a skills based migration system
twitter.com/Reuters/status/1159548915164880899
Yes highly skilled migrants, it was bar and cafe workers and taxi drivers and hospitality and construction and factory and shop workers Leavers wanted fewer of not scientists, scientists are not competition for the average Hartlepool, Thurrock or Barnsley Leave voter and their
I wonder how many EU citizens there are working in Hartlepool coffee shops dragging down the wages of local baristas.
I would think it would be LOTS. When I go into a coffee shop all the baristas have a foreign accent (and I do not mean English!)
Admittedly, I do not frequent Hartlepool. Perhaps they do things differently there.
Yes highly skilled migrants, it was bar and cafe workers and taxi drivers and hospitality and construction and factory and shop workers Leavers wanted fewer of not scientists, scientists are not competition for the average Hartlepool, Thurrock or Barnsley Leave voter and their
I wonder how many EU citizens there are working in Hartlepool coffee shops dragging down the wages of local baristas.
Comments
I still care about the Tory party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Francois
However this is more a 1940 general election (taken 9 years into the Tories term just like an autumn general election) as Churchill prepared for war not a 1945 general election (taken 14 years into a Tory led government) when Churchill had won the war
Boris Johnson the Gough Whitlam de nos jours?
The Queen has no problems effectively sacking a Prime Minister?
Note this happened three years before I was born, so I might be talking shite
I'm not going to be dishonest and say lets sign this while having zero intention of honouring the agreement. That's not a solution.
The fact remains instead of seeking a mandate, the parties worked together in the National interest. I don't think Boris is remotely capable of Churchillian leadership or the Conservative party governing in the interests of the whole UK when they prioritise tax cuts for the rich because they think the rich need more money...
It is the legal default. It is the natural consequence of the Article 50 Act.
It has been pre-announced that HMG intend to leave the EU on 31st, deal or no deal.
Whitlam's Labor government had been elected in 1972 with a small majority in the House of Representatives, but with the Senate balance of power being held by the Democratic Labor Party who usually supported the Liberal-Country Opposition. Another election in 1974 resulted in little change. While the Whitlam Government introduced many new policies and programs, it was also rocked by scandals and political miscalculations. In October 1975, the Opposition used its control of the Senate to defer passage of appropriation bills (needed to finance government expenditure), that had been passed by the House of Representatives. The Opposition stated that they would continue their stance unless Whitlam called an election for the House of Representatives, and urged Kerr to dismiss Whitlam unless he agreed to their demand. Whitlam believed that Kerr would not dismiss him, and Kerr did nothing to disabuse Whitlam of this notion.
On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he went to seek Kerr's approval of the election, Kerr instead dismissed him as Prime Minister and shortly thereafter installed Fraser in his place. Acting quickly before all ALP parliamentarians became aware of the change of government, Fraser and his allies were able to secure passage of the appropriation bills, and Kerr dissolved Parliament for a double dissolution election. Fraser and his government were returned with a massive majority in the election held the following month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
The EU forced us in to the will of the People...
https://twitter.com/AberdeenFC/status/1159551269289320448
The government was not elected on its current policy. The date of 31 October did not figure in the 2017 election. If the current government is defeated in a vote of no confidence, you have a Prime Minister who was not put before the national electorate who does not command a majority in Parliament whose policy has no mandate of any kind, seeking to impose it outside the scope of established precedent. So yes, I’d call that unconstitutional.
It’s your party. Proud of your membership?
https://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/2019/august/statement-on-behalf-of-paul-appleton-joint-administrator-for-bolton-wanderers/
Boris is also pushing tax cuts and more money for the NHS rather than May's Dementia tax and 'no magic money tree' as well as committing to deliver Brexit
Anyway, it won't happen like that. Chances are a tweaked deal will get through. And because Boris plainly under the clear words of the FTPA can defer an election, there won't be a VONC.
Why Labour Mps would want an election with current polls is a mystery.
Your entire hatred of the backstop is based on assuming the EU is not sincere in wanting either an FTA or a technical solution. (And if they weren't, we would be quite within our rights to leave.)
Not only that, but you then go on to propose breaking existing treaty commitments under the GATT 1974 and 1994 Treaties. Are those treaties not sacred too?
So it will pass a vote of no confidence, then it will panic. Exactly what it will do in the panic I’m not sure, but it will do something. It is likely to be highly unpredictable.
Got it.
He says that like its a price not a benefit.
It seems to me that there are two countries and two sets of countries developing common standards that could win out globally:
USA
China
EU
CPTPP
Which bit of that is confusing you?
I don't propose breaking any existing commitments.
Their standards are fine.
There’s £38mn less a week right there...
Viewing it as an unacceptable price is absurd.
Win, win.
Evey advantage being touted seems to be America First, from Chlorine Chicken to US involvement in the NHS.
Benefits to British exporters seem thin on the ground.
On the Meeks/12 discussion, no-deal wouldn't be the imposition of a policy decision so much as a legislative default and compliance with a treaty obligation. Can anyone give examples of times HMG has sought during election purdah to amend not only domestic legislation but international treaty operation, even if it is 'only' a commencement provision?
I think a similar argument runs for the constitutionality question. We should start from the premise that nobody needs a mandate for inertia, especially where that inertia is of the operation of a recent Act. We know Pmt has voted to serve an A50 notice in the knowledge of A50 contents, and has voted to give itself veto on a WA, then voted the WA down three times. Inertia, I'm sure we'd all agree, leads us to no deal. No further mandate is required.
By contrast, you'd have to look pretty hard to find a precedent for a PM who isn't a party leader, or even in the largest party, to come to power other than by election and then change such a crucial policy direction. And they would certainly have no mandate to revoke or call another referendum. I'd argue they could extend constitutionally, as that is an exec power and any legislative authority to do so would be negative SI work.
On a betting point, has anyone done a big spreadsheet with how many MPs would support any particular MP in a GONU? I realise as I type that this requires a third of a million pieces of data, so probably not.
I thought it was going to be John Bolton.
My point though is that even if all you are seeking is an extension, there will be 8 weeks to get an extension. If there is a VONC then there will be 2 weeks to get one.
If there's no extension or alternative solution after 2 weeks its Game Over, Parliament has dissolved itself and now is utterly powerless. Only the executive will exist anymore.
Unless at least some Tory rebels - as well as everybody else besides the Tory loyalists and the DUP, including various ex-Labour "never Corbyn" types - can be persuaded to install Jeremy Corbyn as PM, then there is no other alternative. Because no alternative to Corbyn will be backed by Corbyn, and he has enough hardcore supporters on his own benches to stymie a Labour rebellion of any size.
The Commons can't pass legislation to unilaterally extend the A50 deadline, because it also needs the agreement of the EU27 and - if my understanding is correct - the only acceptable interlocutor between the UK and the European Council would be either the head of Government or the head of State. Boris Johnson remains acting head of Government in the event of a VoNC until a replacement can command the confidence of the House - so the only option that leaves MPs with is to attempt to command the Queen to do their dirty work for them.
HM is, of course, a constitutional monarch whose position is conventionally interpreted as being apolitical, so the Palace would presumably be both inclined and entitled to refuse were such a daft request to be made. Then what?
Admittedly, I do not frequent Hartlepool. Perhaps they do things differently there.
(£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/third-millennials-want-martial-law-66-per-cent-prefer-strong/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49282689
"Science bodies have welcomed the proposals but warn any benefits to research would be greatly outweighed by the damage caused by a no-deal Brexit."
Oh well...