Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
The EU have been discussing Brexit with all the parties since 2016. This is nothing new.
I would expect UK officials have regular discussions with Nancy Pelosi. It does not make Pelosi a traitor or the UK trying to collude against the US govt.
Well that's the point, its discussion on unofficial levels which are irrelevant versus negotiation and agreed actions. If the EU just want to know what the rebels position is thats fine, but they can't agree they will offer x y and z in return for the rebels ensuring the Benn Bill passes, for example.
What do you think the UK govt will be doing with Pelosi? They will be saying can we get x, y and z through congress in a trade deal.
Separation of powers is different in the States. But they wont be negotiating with Pelosii they will be discussing their respective positions, Pelosi has no authority to conclude a trade deal
Separation of powers exists in the UK as well, parliament makes laws and before making laws they check the impact of laws with other lawyers, it is the most unremarkable thing to get worked up about.
Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
That's not true. It was denied in 1707.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
It has been a formality for three centuries. For over a century the monarchy has kept itself out of politics. If you really think our current Queen will change that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Sadly, we are well past this argument, after Bercow overturned several centuries of precedent in how standing orders are treated.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
That's not true. It was denied in 1707.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
It has been a formality for three centuries. For over a century the monarchy has kept itself out of politics. If you really think our current Queen will change that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Sadly, we are well past this argument, after Bercow overturned several centuries of precedent in how standing orders are treated.
You’re comparing procedural shenanigans in Parliament (which are clearly supported by Parliament) to not giving royal assent to a bill that has passed both houses of Parliament with clear majorities?
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
'Victorious leave vote' - you do amuse so many on here
Oh, and what happened to Boris 'nailed on' majority
Why not be honest and at least admit he has had a bad week
Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
That's not true. It was denied in 1707.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
It has been a formality for three centuries. For over a century the monarchy has kept itself out of politics. If you really think our current Queen will change that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Sadly, we are well past this argument, after Bercow overturned several centuries of precedent in how standing orders are treated.
I'm really tired of hearing this idiotic statement. The role of the Speaker is to represent the interests of Parliament and its members. He can conform to precedent or move forward as he interprets the will of the House.
Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
That's not true. It was denied in 1707.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
It has been a formality for three centuries. For over a century the monarchy has kept itself out of politics. If you really think our current Queen will change that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Sadly, we are well past this argument, after Bercow overturned several centuries of precedent in how standing orders are treated.
You’re comparing procedural shenanigans in Parliament (which are clearly supported by Parliament) to not giving royal assent to a bill that has passed both houses of Parliament with clear majorities?
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
That's not true. It was denied in 1707.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
It has been a formality for three centuries. For over a century the monarchy has kept itself out of politics. If you really think our current Queen will change that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Sadly, we are well past this argument, after Bercow overturned several centuries of precedent in how standing orders are treated.
You’re comparing procedural shenanigans in Parliament (which are clearly supported by Parliament) to not giving royal assent to a bill that has passed both houses of Parliament with clear majorities?
Boris should deny royal assent to the bill since the opposition have refused an election or VONC.
Let the opposition VONC him if they want assent given.
He can't. Royal assent is a formality. It is never denied. If Boris tried to drag the Queen into politics by asking her to refuse or delay assent to this bill he will, I am quite certain, be told where to go.
That's not true. It was denied in 1707.
Everything is a formality until it isn't.
It has been a formality for three centuries. For over a century the monarchy has kept itself out of politics. If you really think our current Queen will change that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Sadly, we are well past this argument, after Bercow overturned several centuries of precedent in how standing orders are treated.
I'm really tired of hearing this idiotic statement. The role of the Speaker is to represent the interests of Parliament and its members. He can conform to precedent or move forward as he interprets the will of the House.
But two can play at that game.
The role of the speaker is to represent the interests of Parliament and its members.
The role of the monarch is to act on the advice of her ministers, as chosen and given confidence by Parliament.
If her ministers advise to refuse consent then why should the Queen not follow her minister's advise?
Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.
Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
The Queen can also change the PM if they refuse to obey Parliament.
I expect Boris would resign before extending and become Leader of the Opposition but the Queen could ask Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman to form a Government and dismiss Boris if it is clear he has lost the confidence of the Commons and refuses to leave office and implement extension and in such circumstances she may have no choice but to do so.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
The EU is not a foreign power. We are members.
The EU is a foreign power for these purposes, the EU's constitution makes this clear. We are not a part of the 27.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
Let's be honest here, if Boris refuses to ask for an extension under dubious interpertation of the no deal law, what exactly can Parliament do about it?
VONC him and install a PM who will ask for the extension.
Yeah the rebel tories and libdems are not voting for Corbyn as PM, the only alternative
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
While we await the polls and the inevitable Conservative ratings of 40% or higher (apparently), where might we be going?
1) Boris Johnson seems in a trap to this observer. He cannot ask for another extension (I have a ditch if he needs one) from the EU as that will finish him politically. Yet he doesn't have the numbers for a GE so it seems he must either jump or be pushed via a VoNC.
2) Could an alternative Government with a limited mandate be formed? Perhaps but as none of the other parties can afford to be seen to empower Corbyn, the leader of that caretaker Government will be the one who has to ask the EU for an extension because the EU deals with the Government, not the Commons.
If Johnson cannot accept the will of Parliament, he has to step aside if someone else can command a majority.
3) The problem for the alternative Government is once extension has been achieved, what then? There may be a temptation to make it work - it would be fascinating to see such a n arrangement last until 2022. All those involved would have the common objectives of keeping out both Corbyn and Johnson (both of whom will have their own problems) and a pragmatic technocratic Government might not be the most unsuccessful or unpopular Government ever.
4) By 2022, 2016 will look a long way off and arguing the point will seem like fighting old battles especially if the new Government is somehow able to achieve a period of relative stability.
5) The truth though is once extension is achieved, it seems likely Labour will want an election but the Conservatives will still be angry and it's not easy to fight anger so it may be Johnson will be back after an election but will he stick to the agreed extension or simply walk out the week after he is elected?
All this because some people thought a referendum was an election and MPs were delegates rather than representatives.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
The EU is not a foreign power. We are members.
The EU is a foreign power for these purposes, the EU's constitution makes this clear. We are not a part of the 27.
Mr. Observer, and yet MPs standing for parties opposed to no deal refused to support a deal on multiple occasions.
Yep, so we need another deal.
There is no other deal.
As you well know. Parliament voted agai8 the only deal 3 times, so now the only option left is no deal.
EEA/EFTA would get through the Commons and be acceptable to a majority in the country.
Brexit is tough. No Deal is no solution.
How can you say that when EEA/EFTA was voted down in the indicative votes?
Because the indicative votes where a sham. They were whipped.
Didn't May give a free vote? Who whipped against EEA/EFTA in the Commons and why didn't MPs break the whip if they cared so much?
No it was not a free vote for payroll MPs.
LMFAO! EEA/EFTA was called Common Market 2.0
Labour MPs were whipped to support Common Market 2.0
Conservatives were given a free vote [except cabinet abstaining] on Common Market 2.0
Considering the opposition whipped to support it and the government gave a free vote, tell me again how the Commons supports it?
So, close to 100 MPs did not vote, while others clearly preferred other options back then. I do not believe it would be tough to add another 60-70 votes to the Common Market 2.0 column given where we are now.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
Clearly you don’t. All I’m hearing is “can’t” and “wont”
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
'Victorious leave vote' - you do amuse so many on here
Oh, and what happened to Boris 'nailed on' majority
Why not be honest and at least admit he has had a bad week
The opposition is refusing to have an election because they're panicking that Boris would get a majority on Oct 15.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
The EU is not a foreign power. We are members.
The EU is a foreign power for these purposes, the EU's constitution makes this clear. We are not a part of the 27.
We’re all citizens of that ‘foreign power’.
Not by choice. Many of us consider their position little different to that of an occupying power.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
Clearly you don’t. All I’m hearing is “can’t” and “wont”
As far as the EU are concerned, not as far as Britain is concerned.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
The EU is not a foreign power. We are members.
The EU is a foreign power for these purposes, the EU's constitution makes this clear. We are not a part of the 27.
We’re all citizens of that ‘foreign power’.
Not by choice. Many of us consider their position little different to that of an occupying power.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
Clearly you don’t. All I’m hearing is “can’t” and “wont”
As far as the EU are concerned, not as far as Britain is concerned.
You’re saying that the EU *wont* compromise unless they think the UK will so Boris cant even be bothered to try.
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
The EU is not a foreign power. We are members.
The EU is a foreign power for these purposes, the EU's constitution makes this clear. We are not a part of the 27.
We’re all citizens of that ‘foreign power’.
Which of the 27 foreign powers are we citizens of? France? Germany? Ireland? Belgium?
Yes, Rory's right. They're starting to sound scary.
Tbf if there were secret talks between the EU and the rebels and action agreed to subvert the UK government's position then it is collusion with a foreign power. The government are the only people that can negotiate with the EU. The language is of course deliberately provocative and not necessary
Weren't they just checking that the EU would indeed grant an extension if one was requested? If anything they were being helpful to Boris - no point losing him his majority if No Deal was nailed on anyway. Boris and Cummings should be thanking them for injecting a bit of clarity and thoroughness.
The EU is not a foreign power. We are members.
The EU is a foreign power for these purposes, the EU's constitution makes this clear. We are not a part of the 27.
We’re all citizens of that ‘foreign power’.
Which of the 27 foreign powers are we citizens of? France? Germany? Ireland? Belgium?
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
'Victorious leave vote' - you do amuse so many on here
Oh, and what happened to Boris 'nailed on' majority
Why not be honest and at least admit he has had a bad week
The opposition is refusing to have an election because they're panicking that Boris would get a majority on Oct 15.
I agree entirely and have said so on many occassions.
Refusing royal assent would be outrageous. The Parliament has passed a law, you can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient.
Parliament can change the PM if its not happy with the veto.
The Queen can also change the PM if they refuse to obey Parliament.
I expect Boris would resign before extending and become Leader of the Opposition but the Queen could ask Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman to form a Government and dismiss Boris if it is clear he has lost the confidence of the Commons and refuses to leave office and implement extension and in such circumstances she may have no choice but to do so.
How does the Palace get to Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman? Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Opposition; if Boris falls under a bus, there will be whichever minister takes over from him. It will not be a random backbencher (or the bus driver: old joke).
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
Clearly you don’t. All I’m hearing is “can’t” and “wont”
As far as the EU are concerned, not as far as Britain is concerned.
You’re saying that the EU *wont* compromise unless they think the UK will so Boris cant even be bothered to try.
He should do his job the lazy good for nothing.
I'm saying the EU have no reason to compromise if they think the UK will give them what they want if they don't.
Its like working for a bad employer who keeps you on minimum wage despite you being one of the biggest contributers for the employer - so you say "I think you should give me a pay rise but if you say no I 100% definitely won't quit".
Mr. Observer, and yet MPs standing for parties opposed to no deal refused to support a deal on multiple occasions.
Yep, so we need another deal.
There is no other deal.
As you well know. Parliament voted agai8 the only deal 3 times, so now the only option left is no deal.
EEA/EFTA would get through the Commons and be acceptable to a majority in the country.
Brexit is tough. No Deal is no solution.
How can you say that when EEA/EFTA was voted down in the indicative votes?
Because the indicative votes where a sham. They were whipped.
Didn't May give a free vote? Who whipped against EEA/EFTA in the Commons and why didn't MPs break the whip if they cared so much?
No it was not a free vote for payroll MPs.
LMFAO! EEA/EFTA was called Common Market 2.0
Labour MPs were whipped to support Common Market 2.0
Conservatives were given a free vote [except cabinet abstaining] on Common Market 2.0
Considering the opposition whipped to support it and the government gave a free vote, tell me again how the Commons supports it?
Ok so it was cabinet rather than payroll, but the point still applies, it wasnt a free vote and the indicative votes had mass abstentions. Ken Clarkes Custom Union failed by 3 votes, the May cabinet would have been in favour if allowed to vote.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
No he can’t because “leave it” has been made illegal. The EU will quite rightly simply ignore him.
A disappointing opening for the pro-Johnson brigade suggesting the week's events have had no real impact. Con+BP 46% Lab+LD+Green 49%.
It's also worth noting the Con and LD rises at 16% don't quite match the Lab/BP/Green declines at 10% so where were the other 6% and where have they come from?
The previous Panelbase numbers from May so it seems probable both CUK and UKIP have disappeared into oblivion as their combined 7% vote share has collapsed to just 1%.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
'Victorious leave vote' - you do amuse so many on here
Oh, and what happened to Boris 'nailed on' majority
Why not be honest and at least admit he has had a bad week
The opposition is refusing to have an election because they're panicking that Boris would get a majority on Oct 15.
I agree entirely and have said so on many occassions.
But it does not change my comments to be fair
Sure it does. You said "what happened to Boris 'nailed on' majority" - nothing has happened, the opposition are running scared of the election.
I don't see how Boris has had a bad week. I think the opposition have walked into his trap.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
Clearly you don’t. All I’m hearing is “can’t” and “wont”
As far as the EU are concerned, not as far as Britain is concerned.
You’re saying that the EU *wont* compromise unless they think the UK will so Boris cant even be bothered to try.
He should do his job the lazy good for nothing.
I'm saying the EU have no reason to compromise if they think the UK will give them what they want if they don't.
Its like working for a bad employer who keeps you on minimum wage despite you being one of the biggest contributers for the employer - so you say "I think you should give me a pay rise but if you say no I 100% definitely won't quit".
So you quit and suddenly you can’t pay your mortgage however the employer continues just as they did before with a little inconvenience.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
No he can’t because “leave it” has been made illegal. The EU will quite rightly simply ignore him.
Thank you for making my point. This is why Boris can't negotiate with the EU.
While we await the polls and the inevitable Conservative ratings of 40% or higher (apparently), where might we be going?
1) Boris Johnson seems in a trap to this observer. He cannot ask for another extension (I have a ditch if he needs one) from the EU as that will finish him politically. Yet he doesn't have the numbers for a GE so it seems he must either jump or be pushed via a VoNC.
2) Could an alternative Government with a limited mandate be formed? Perhaps but as none of the other parties can afford to be seen to empower Corbyn, the leader of that caretaker Government will be the one who has to ask the EU for an extension because the EU deals with the Government, not the Commons.
If Johnson cannot accept the will of Parliament, he has to step aside if someone else can command a majority.
3) The problem for the alternative Government is once extension has been achieved, what then? There may be a temptation to make it work - it would be fascinating to see such a n arrangement last until 2022. All those involved would have the common objectives of keeping out both Corbyn and Johnson (both of whom will have their own problems) and a pragmatic technocratic Government might not be the most unsuccessful or unpopular Government ever.
4) By 2022, 2016 will look a long way off and arguing the point will seem like fighting old battles especially if the new Government is somehow able to achieve a period of relative stability.
5) The truth though is once extension is achieved, it seems likely Labour will want an election but the Conservatives will still be angry and it's not easy to fight anger so it may be Johnson will be back after an election but will he stick to the agreed extension or simply walk out the week after he is elected?
All this because some people thought a referendum was an election and MPs were delegates rather than representatives.
No. All this because MPs forgot they were delegated to represent their constituents and not their own personal wishes and desires.
I know you all love to quote Burke on this as if he is some sort of prophet but it is worth remembering that Burke's actions based on his own philosophy ruined the businesses and lives of many of those he represented and led to him being thrown out of office 2 years later.
In the end you can make all these claims about 'delegates' rather than 'representatives' but most of the time it is just a smoke screen for MPs doing what they want and sod their constituents.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
Clearly you don’t. All I’m hearing is “can’t” and “wont”
As far as the EU are concerned, not as far as Britain is concerned.
You’re saying that the EU *wont* compromise unless they think the UK will so Boris cant even be bothered to try.
He should do his job the lazy good for nothing.
I'm saying the EU have no reason to compromise if they think the UK will give them what they want if they don't.
Its like working for a bad employer who keeps you on minimum wage despite you being one of the biggest contributers for the employer - so you say "I think you should give me a pay rise but if you say no I 100% definitely won't quit".
So you quit and suddenly you can’t pay your mortgage however the employer continues just as they did before with a little inconvenience.
So be it.
And if you work hard, you will find a new employer [or could even start your own business] - whereas a bad employer who loses all their good employees won't be competitive for long.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
No he can’t because “leave it” has been made illegal. The EU will quite rightly simply ignore him.
Thank you for making my point. This is why Boris can't negotiate with the EU.
You do realise negotiations can still happen without the ultimate leverage?
Going back to your employment analogy, you would never threaten to leave an employer if you want a good outcome. They would just tell you to f*ck off.
You would propose a pay increase and give reasons why and they might offer something slightly less than you proposed.
You must lead a very sad life if you think every negotiation must be done with a gun to the head.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
Clearly you don’t. All I’m hearing is “can’t” and “wont”
As far as the EU are concerned, not as far as Britain is concerned.
You’re saying that the EU *wont* compromise unless they think the UK will so Boris cant even be bothered to try.
He should do his job the lazy good for nothing.
I'm saying the EU have no reason to compromise if they think the UK will give them what they want if they don't.
Its like working for a bad employer who keeps you on minimum wage despite you being one of the biggest contributers for the employer - so you say "I think you should give me a pay rise but if you say no I 100% definitely won't quit".
So you quit and suddenly you can’t pay your mortgage however the employer continues just as they did before with a little inconvenience.
So be it.
And if you work hard, you will find a new employer [or could even start your own business] - whereas a bad employer who loses all their good employees won't be competitive for long.
Not giving into blackmail does not a bad employer make.
If other weekend polls are similar to the Panelbase and Survation ones, Johnson is in deep, deep trouble. Big if, though.
No he isn't, Tories plus DUP have a majority with Survation and even with Panelbase the Tories would still comfortably be largest party.
However both pollsters tend to have higher Labour voteshare and lower LD voteshares than Yougov or Ipsos Mori for example yet even Panelbase has Labour losing 8 seats more than the Tories.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
No he can’t because “leave it” has been made illegal. The EU will quite rightly simply ignore him.
If the EU ignores a Commons majority for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop then Boris rightly goes into Opposition on a No Deal platform until they change their mind
You do realise negotiations can still happen without the ultimate leverage?
Going back to your employment analogy, you would never threaten to leave an employer if you want a good outcome. They would just tell you to f*ck off.
You would propose a pay increase and give reasons why and they might offer something slightly less than you proposed.
You must lead a very sad life if you think every negotiation must be done with a gun to the head.
Actually as both an employee and as an employer I've had discussions escalate to the point where a threat to leave was made. As an employee when I threatened to the first time I got what I wanted, when I did the second time I was told "OK thanks for all your help".
As an employer I've done the same thing. I've had people threaten to leave and I've felt no choice but to give them what they wanted, I've also had people threaten to leave and I've said 'goodbye'. It happens.
I don't feel every negotiation has to have a gun to the head but I have always felt that you should never metaphorically put a gun to the head if you're not prepared to pull the trigger. To do so and not pull the trigger leaves you impotent.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
No he can’t because “leave it” has been made illegal. The EU will quite rightly simply ignore him.
If the EU ignores a Commons majority for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop then Boris rightly goes into Opposition on a No Deal platform until they change their mind
They have already rejected the WA minus the backstop.
This is like smashing your head against the wall repeatedly and expecting it to not hurt the 3rd time.
@HYUFD why isn’t BoZo *already* trying to get the EU to agree to a technical solution for the Irish border instead of parading around the country pretending he’s on an election campaign?
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
Because the EU won't compromise if they think the UK will.
You should believe in Britain instead of talking us down.
I do believe in Britain. I want our MPs to believe in Britain too.
Clearly you don’t. All I’m hearing is “can’t” and “wont”
As far as the EU are concerned, not as far as Britain is concerned.
You’re saying that the EU *wont* compromise unless they think the UK will so Boris cant even be bothered to try.
He should do his job the lazy good for nothing.
I'm saying the EU have no reason to compromise if they think the UK will give them what they want if they don't.
Its like working for a bad employer who keeps you on minimum wage despite you being one of the biggest contributers for the employer - so you say "I think you should give me a pay rise but if you say no I 100% definitely won't quit".
So you quit and suddenly you can’t pay your mortgage however the employer continues just as they did before with a little inconvenience.
So be it.
And if you work hard, you will find a new employer [or could even start your own business] - whereas a bad employer who loses all their good employees won't be competitive for long.
Not giving into blackmail does not a bad employer make.
The analogy started with "Its like working for a bad employer ..."
You do realise negotiations can still happen without the ultimate leverage?
Going back to your employment analogy, you would never threaten to leave an employer if you want a good outcome. They would just tell you to f*ck off.
You would propose a pay increase and give reasons why and they might offer something slightly less than you proposed.
You must lead a very sad life if you think every negotiation must be done with a gun to the head.
Actually as both an employee and as an employer I've had discussions escalate to the point where a threat to leave was made. As an employee when I threatened to the first time I got what I wanted, when I did the second time I was told "OK thanks for all your help".
As an employer I've done the same thing. I've had people threaten to leave and I've felt no choice but to give them what they wanted, I've also had people threaten to leave and I've said 'goodbye'. It happens.
I don't feel every negotiation has to have a gun to the head but I have always felt that you should never metaphorically put a gun to the head if you're not prepared to pull the trigger. To do so and not pull the trigger leaves you impotent.
You do realise negotiations can still happen without the ultimate leverage?
Going back to your employment analogy, you would never threaten to leave an employer if you want a good outcome. They would just tell you to f*ck off.
You would propose a pay increase and give reasons why and they might offer something slightly less than you proposed.
You must lead a very sad life if you think every negotiation must be done with a gun to the head.
Actually as both an employee and as an employer I've had discussions escalate to the point where a threat to leave was made. As an employee when I threatened to the first time I got what I wanted, when I did the second time I was told "OK thanks for all your help".
As an employer I've done the same thing. I've had people threaten to leave and I've felt no choice but to give them what they wanted, I've also had people threaten to leave and I've said 'goodbye'. It happens.
I don't feel every negotiation has to have a gun to the head but I have always felt that you should never metaphorically put a gun to the head if you're not prepared to pull the trigger. To do so and not pull the trigger leaves you impotent.
Thank you for proving my point.
What point?
Making the threat to leave [and meaning it] changes things. Taking that off the table leaves you relatively impotent.
Quick question....what if PM resigns at the very last minute when the letter is due to be signed/delivered and there’s no time to find anyone else to sign/deliver?
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
'Victorious leave vote' - you do amuse so many on here
Oh, and what happened to Boris 'nailed on' majority
Why not be honest and at least admit he has had a bad week
The opposition is refusing to have an election because they're panicking that Boris would get a majority on Oct 15.
I agree entirely and have said so on many occassions.
But it does not change my comments to be fair
Sure it does. You said "what happened to Boris 'nailed on' majority" - nothing has happened, the opposition are running scared of the election.
I don't see how Boris has had a bad week. I think the opposition have walked into his trap.
That is the problem when you become too tribal. Boris has had a dreadful week with the ill thought out rambling speech in front of the police and his brother walking out on him. He does not inspire confidence and is in a big mess
Now, whether this is bad for him, and many on here attack him from their own tribal standpoint, time will tell. I do think the only way he can dig himself out of this is by some agreement with Farage to fight the remainers together, as brexit is seriously threatened
He does run the risk of losing more moderate conservatives like me but what must be remembered, as bad as Boris is, I would never vote to enable a Corbyn government
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
No he can’t because “leave it” has been made illegal. The EU will quite rightly simply ignore him.
If the EU ignores a Commons majority for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop then Boris rightly goes into Opposition on a No Deal platform until they change their mind
They have already rejected the WA minus the backstop.
This is like smashing your head against the wall repeatedly and expecting it to not hurt the 3rd time.
They rejected it when rejecting it means we remain with an extension.
They never rejected it when rejecting it means we leave and they have an immediate hard border.
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
Even if Johnson was so inclined to bring it back, it wouldn't pass now.
The Tories and Brexit Party ought to make a pact since they're on about 46% combined. But they probably won't since Cummings apparently can't stand Farage.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
No he can’t because “leave it” has been made illegal. The EU will quite rightly simply ignore him.
If the EU ignores a Commons majority for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop then Boris rightly goes into Opposition on a No Deal platform until they change their mind
They have already rejected the WA minus the backstop.
This is like smashing your head against the wall repeatedly and expecting it to not hurt the 3rd time.
And the Commons has already rejected the WA with the backstop 3 times
That is the problem when you become too tribal. Boris has had a dreadful week with the ill thought out rambling speech in front of the police and his brother walking out on him. He does not inspire confidence and is in a big mess
Now, whether this is bad for him, and many on here attack him from their own tribal standpoint, time will tell. I do think the only way he can dig himself out of this is by some agreement with Farage to fight the remainers together, as brexit is seriously threatened
He does run the risk of losing more moderate conservatives like me but what must be remembered, as bad as Boris is, I would never vote to enable a Corbyn government
The one dreadful element you mentioned I agree with was his brother walking out. He made a foolish mistake offering his brother a job given his brother was an extreme remainer, one of the few to leave May's cabinet on the remain side of the fence. Silly mistake that came back to bite him.
Let's be honest here, if Boris refuses to ask for an extension under dubious interpertation of the no deal law, what exactly can Parliament do about it?
VONC him and install a PM who will ask for the extension.
Yeah the rebel tories and libdems are not voting for Corbyn as PM, the only alternative
FWIW I think the LDs might be persuaded to swallow their objections to Corbyn in return for a commitment that a GONU will legislate for a second referendum. We are not there yet but things could move very fast if Johnson threatens not to obey the law. A week ago nobody would have expected the opposition parties to have shown the unity and coherence that have enabled them take control of the parliamentary agenda as they have done.
Given the current Parliament clearly has no interest in respecting the victorious Leave vote of 2016 I can certainly understand Boris in his determination to stand his ground and refuse to extend even if defying an Act of Parliament to do so.
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
How’s that going to work when the bill says that the extension must be requested by the 19th October unless Parliament votes for no deal or a new Brexit deal?
The Commons could vote for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
No he can’t because “leave it” has been made illegal. The EU will quite rightly simply ignore him.
If the EU ignores a Commons majority for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop then Boris rightly goes into Opposition on a No Deal platform until they change their mind
They have already rejected the WA minus the backstop.
This is like smashing your head against the wall repeatedly and expecting it to not hurt the 3rd time.
And the Commons has already rejected the WA with the backstop 3 times
Comments
However assuming the anti No Deal Bill gets Royal Assent next week rather than disobey the law Boris should shift course to try and get the EU to agree a technical solution for the Irish border as an alternative to the backstop in the EU Council of October 17th and then get an amended Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons (which the Brady amendment suggested it would).
If the EU does not agree to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement then Boris should resign as PM by October 31st and take the Tories into opposition on a No Deal platform until the backstop is removed and let the Commons elect someone else as PM to extend. If they have not done so by the 31st as Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge said today a civil servant can sign the extension on behalf of the Government instead
Oh, and what happened to Boris 'nailed on' majority
Why not be honest and at least admit he has had a bad week
Maybe he should do his job instead of lecturing MPs about doing theres?
The role of the speaker is to represent the interests of Parliament and its members.
The role of the monarch is to act on the advice of her ministers, as chosen and given confidence by Parliament.
If her ministers advise to refuse consent then why should the Queen not follow her minister's advise?
I expect Boris would resign before extending and become Leader of the Opposition but the Queen could ask Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman to form a Government and dismiss Boris if it is clear he has lost the confidence of the Commons and refuses to leave office and implement extension and in such circumstances she may have no choice but to do so.
Only a 3 point lead over Labour. Oosh.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1170373770487500800?s=21
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/dominic-cummings-loner-friend-now-running-country/
While we await the polls and the inevitable Conservative ratings of 40% or higher (apparently), where might we be going?
1) Boris Johnson seems in a trap to this observer. He cannot ask for another extension (I have a ditch if he needs one) from the EU as that will finish him politically. Yet he doesn't have the numbers for a GE so it seems he must either jump or be pushed via a VoNC.
2) Could an alternative Government with a limited mandate be formed? Perhaps but as none of the other parties can afford to be seen to empower Corbyn, the leader of that caretaker Government will be the one who has to ask the EU for an extension because the EU deals with the Government, not the Commons.
If Johnson cannot accept the will of Parliament, he has to step aside if someone else can command a majority.
3) The problem for the alternative Government is once extension has been achieved, what then? There may be a temptation to make it work - it would be fascinating to see such a n arrangement last until 2022. All those involved would have the common objectives of keeping out both Corbyn and Johnson (both of whom will have their own problems) and a pragmatic technocratic Government might not be the most unsuccessful or unpopular Government ever.
4) By 2022, 2016 will look a long way off and arguing the point will seem like fighting old battles especially if the new Government is somehow able to achieve a period of relative stability.
5) The truth though is once extension is achieved, it seems likely Labour will want an election but the Conservatives will still be angry and it's not easy to fight anger so it may be Johnson will be back after an election but will he stick to the agreed extension or simply walk out the week after he is elected?
All this because some people thought a referendum was an election and MPs were delegates rather than representatives.
3% Tory lead as opposed to a 10% Labour lead in the last poll
Con majority?
He should do his job the lazy good for nothing.
a day or two before and Boris can tell the EU to either take it and his technical solution for the Irish border or leave it
But it does not change my comments to be fair
Its like working for a bad employer who keeps you on minimum wage despite you being one of the biggest contributers for the employer - so you say "I think you should give me a pay rise but if you say no I 100% definitely won't quit".
It's also worth noting the Con and LD rises at 16% don't quite match the Lab/BP/Green declines at 10% so where were the other 6% and where have they come from?
https://opinionbee.uk/poll/4073/panelbase-sunday-times-14-21-may-2019-westminster-voting-intention
The previous Panelbase numbers from May so it seems probable both CUK and UKIP have disappeared into oblivion as their combined 7% vote share has collapsed to just 1%.
I don't see how Boris has had a bad week. I think the opposition have walked into his trap.
I know you all love to quote Burke on this as if he is some sort of prophet but it is worth remembering that Burke's actions based on his own philosophy ruined the businesses and lives of many of those he represented and led to him being thrown out of office 2 years later.
In the end you can make all these claims about 'delegates' rather than 'representatives' but most of the time it is just a smoke screen for MPs doing what they want and sod their constituents.
And if you work hard, you will find a new employer [or could even start your own business] - whereas a bad employer who loses all their good employees won't be competitive for long.
Going back to your employment analogy, you would never threaten to leave an employer if you want a good outcome. They would just tell you to f*ck off.
You would propose a pay increase and give reasons why and they might offer something slightly less than you proposed.
You must lead a very sad life if you think every negotiation must be done with a gun to the head.
However both pollsters tend to have higher Labour voteshare and lower LD voteshares than Yougov or Ipsos Mori for example yet even Panelbase has Labour losing 8 seats more than the Tories.
It is Corbyn in more trouble than Boris albeit Swinson has most to cheer for now.
https://twitter.com/Adam_IoM/status/1170374866056417280?s=20
Meanwhile in progressive Scotland...
As an employer I've done the same thing. I've had people threaten to leave and I've felt no choice but to give them what they wanted, I've also had people threaten to leave and I've said 'goodbye'. It happens.
I don't feel every negotiation has to have a gun to the head but I have always felt that you should never metaphorically put a gun to the head if you're not prepared to pull the trigger. To do so and not pull the trigger leaves you impotent.
This is like smashing your head against the wall repeatedly and expecting it to not hurt the 3rd time.
Making the threat to leave [and meaning it] changes things. Taking that off the table leaves you relatively impotent.
Take 10 off the blue seat total
Now, whether this is bad for him, and many on here attack him from their own tribal standpoint, time will tell. I do think the only way he can dig himself out of this is by some agreement with Farage to fight the remainers together, as brexit is seriously threatened
He does run the risk of losing more moderate conservatives like me but what must be remembered, as bad as Boris is, I would never vote to enable a Corbyn government
They never rejected it when rejecting it means we leave and they have an immediate hard border.
This will please the Cummings...