No, he'll pitch it as the first of a number of specatular moves to Make Britain Great Again. And win on the back of the squabbling opposition.
It's depressingly similar to Trump 2020. There simply is no credible opposition, not least in that populism and its relationship to the media has redefined what "credible" means.
I don't think it is helpful to keep harping on about it being a small majority: the turnout was, for the UK, very high, and the majority was also a good one. For example, in 1964 Harold Wilson ended years of Conservative rule by getting a mere 0.7% majority over Alex Douglas-Home. In the first election in 1974 Labour polled the same percentage less than Heath's Conservatives yet still formed a government, and even at the second 1974 poll they still have a smaller percentage majority than the 2016 referendum.
I don't think the outcome of the next GE is clear-cut either way: the LibDems' decision to revoke Article 50 is going to lose them a lot of votes, especially in their heartland seats in the West country, and many of the MPs who have crossed the floor also come from constituencies which voted Leave by a substantial majority.
Frankly, I just wish our politicians would shut up, try to make some sense out of the mess that childish intransigence on both sides has wrought, and stop making this country an international laughing stock.
I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
Vote for me, I lied about everything else but this and it hasn't gone all Mad Max yet ... I won't crumble in a crisis. But I will run away from a few protesters because I can't stand loud noises.
I wouldn't vote for that ... that ... If it was the only thing on the ballot paper.
As I pointed out, it wasn't, by UK standards, marginal at all. And unless and until people take that fact on board the divisions whipped up by and after the Referendum will only stay or get worse.
As I pointed out, it wasn't, by UK standards, marginal at all. And unless and until people take that fact on board the divisions whipped up by and after the Referendum will only stay or get worse.
On the contrary, until leavers accept that around half the population think that their choice is insanely destructive and that they have to try and reach some sort of accommodation rather than stamping their feet and demanding they have their way the divisions will continue. And let's be honest about who whipped up the divisions. It was the tories and their friends in the press: particularly Gove, Johnson, the Mail, Sun, Express and Telegraph.
As I pointed out, it wasn't, by UK standards, marginal at all. And unless and until people take that fact on board the divisions whipped up by and after the Referendum will only stay or get worse.
I agree. I must however point out that the Leave campaigns made a big deal out of sovereignty, but the leave supporters have whinged long and hard when our sovereign body has voted contrary to government motions and policy.
I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
Does he realise that the outcome of this may be that he'll be the PM when the sky does fall?
Frankly, I just wish our politicians would shut up, try to make some sense out of the mess that childish intransigence on both sides has wrought, and stop making this country an international laughing stock.
That boat sailed away when Dave decided to appease elements of his party by having a ridiculous referendum on a subject that hardly anybody in the country could actually analyse and have a reasonable view on and then one side barely campaigned at all and the other side campaigned with lie after lie. The UK is an international laughing stock and it will continue to be so for decades.
Some of our politicians are trying to make the most of it and regain some credibility and some are trying to create a situation that suits themselves and bollocks to the rest of us. Unfortunately the latter group have the ascendancy. Perhaps calling us a laughing stock is kind.
Some of our politicians are trying to make the most of it and regain some credibility and some are trying to create a situation that suits themselves and bollocks to the rest of us. Unfortunately the latter group have the ascendancy. Perhaps calling us a laughing stock is kind.
That has been that state of play for as long as I can remember. In the early Seventies Ted Heath (a genuine one-nation Tory PM) described the odious businessman Tiny Rowlands (see Lonrho) as "The unacceptable face of capitalism". Others suggested another part of the anatomy, but that kind of business economics has predominated ever since.
Some of our politicians are trying to make the most of it and regain some credibility and some are trying to create a situation that suits themselves and bollocks to the rest of us. Unfortunately the latter group have the ascendancy. Perhaps calling us a laughing stock is kind.
That has been that state of play for as long as I can remember. In the early Seventies Ted Heath (a genuine one-nation Tory PM) described the odious businessman Tiny Rowlands (see Lonrho) as "The unacceptable face of capitalism". Others suggested another part of the anatomy, but that kind of business economics has predominated ever since.
They could do worse than hand over the whole mess to the Royal College of Organists: a body of people used to dealing with the mad, deluded, and permanently "difficult" for the whole of their working lives.
I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
I understand the section about oil refineries is missing from the Operetation Yellowhammer report, so if there are long queues or "NO FUEL" signs at filling stations or fuel rationing of any kind, Boris and his party could be shafted.
Some of our politicians are trying to make the most of it and regain some credibility and some are trying to create a situation that suits themselves and bollocks to the rest of us. Unfortunately the latter group have the ascendancy. Perhaps calling us a laughing stock is kind.
That has been that state of play for as long as I can remember. In the early Seventies Ted Heath (a genuine one-nation Tory PM) described the odious businessman Tiny Rowlands (see Lonrho) as "The unacceptable face of capitalism". Others suggested another part of the anatomy, but that kind of business economics has predominated ever since.
They could do worse than hand over the whole mess to the Royal College of Organists: a body of people used to dealing with the mad, deluded, and permanently "difficult" for the whole of their working lives.
Every time they look in the mirror, for starters. One of the occupational hazards of working with organists is that quality seems to be pretty closely correlated with insanity, like you can't play an instrument that requires four limbs effectively and engage with the mundane world too.
EDIT: in fairness I've encountered some terrible organists who were nutters, but the fact remains that I've never encountered a good organist who wasn't at least eccentric.
EDIT: in fairness I've encountered some terrible organists who were nutters, but the fact remains that I've never encountered a good organist who wasn't at least eccentric.
I find that very easy to believe; anyone who can make all four limbs coordinated in such a ridiculously complex fashion clearly has something wrong with their brain.
I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
I understand the section about oil refineries is missing from the Operetation Yellowhammer report, so if there are long queues or "NO FUEL" signs at filling stations or fuel rationing of any kind, Boris and his party could be shafted.
If the election is after Brexit but not before the sky falls, plan B (or possibly plan A?) is a state of emergency indefinitely keeping the current lot in power, in my view. I don't think they care about the consequences for the hoi polloi as long as they can retain power or money or, preferably, both.
I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
Vote for me, I lied about everything else but this and it hasn't gone all Mad Max yet ... I won't crumble in a crisis. But I will run away from a few protesters because I can't stand loud noises.
I wouldn't vote for that ... that ... If it was the only thing on the ballot paper.
No, but there is a curious resistance on this vessel to the idea that anybody in the UK would, whereas in fact quite a few are apparently willing to do so. My wider in-law family is pretty large, I can't find a Remainer among them, and I don't think I'm an isolated case.
I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
I understand the section about oil refineries is missing from the Operetation Yellowhammer report, so if there are long queues or "NO FUEL" signs at filling stations or fuel rationing of any kind, Boris and his party could be shafted.
If the election is after Brexit but not before the sky falls, plan B (or possibly plan A?) is a state of emergency indefinitely keeping the current lot in power, in my view. I don't think they care about the consequences for the hoi polloi as long as they can retain power or money or, preferably, both.
There are a lot of motorists in South-Eastern England, which is Tory heartland. If they can't drive their precious motor cars and don't get Brexit, the right-wing nutters will take to the streets. If a state of emergency is declared the army will take to the streets to keep the right-wing nutters and the left-wing nutters apart. Mind you we don't have enough troops to handle that nowadays.
My feeling is that Boris, like Trump, lives for the moment. He doesn't feel in any personal danger from any of this and sees himself as a Churchillian "fight them on the beaches" figure. He doesn't have a plan, he's simply supremely confident in his ability to appear in charge.
I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that Cummings is probably a disciple of the Bannon school of thought that only violent upheaval of society will lead to its improvement, and again probably considers himself immune from the nastier side-effects of that.
to the streets. If a state of emergency is declared the army will take to the streets to keep the right-wing nutters and the left-wing nutters apart. Mind you we don't have enough troops to handle that nowadays.
I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
Vote for me, I lied about everything else but this and it hasn't gone all Mad Max yet ... I won't crumble in a crisis. But I will run away from a few protesters because I can't stand loud noises.
I wouldn't vote for that ... that ... If it was the only thing on the ballot paper.
No, but there is a curious resistance on this vessel to the idea that anybody in the UK would, whereas in fact quite a few are apparently willing to do so. My wider in-law family is pretty large, I can't find a Remainer among them, and I don't think I'm an isolated case.
When it comes to Brexit, the Ship is a bit of an echo-chamber. Well done to @TheOrganist for being willing to argue for Leave against the majority.
Our friends are a mixture of rabid leavers and remainers, plus the disinterested.The bulk of the older generation in our families voted Leave. (Although one lied about it afterwards as they didn't want to upset their grand-children). The rest - who are our age or younger - voted Remain. No one's shifted since the Ref. We keep it together by not talking about it much or focusing on Brexit related things we agree about.
I refuse to fall out with people about this which is why I find some of the language used by both sides so difficult. Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
No, but only one side is willing to risk killing members of my family to get the result they want.
Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
No, but only one side is willing to risk killing members of my family to get the result they want.
So, thick isn't the adjective I'd use.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
O there's plenty of malice around this whole crock of Brex-shit, much of it directed at Horrible Johnny Foreigner, but a fair bit towards citizens of the 'United' Kingdom, too...
BTW, why is Piffleglum not being summoned to appear at the Court hearings, currently in progress? I know, of course, that he's not on trial (yet), but surely he should be given a chance to explain himself?
Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
No, but only one side is willing to risk killing members of my family to get the result they want.
So, thick isn't the adjective I'd use.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
Leaving the EU will improve nothing. Not one thing. And it will put many things in peril.
Tell me again why that advisory referendum based on premises demonstrated to be false is so fucking sacrosant, and why this shouldn't be rubbed in the faces of its intransigent fanatics.
Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
No, but only one side is willing to risk killing members of my family to get the result they want.
So, thick isn't the adjective I'd use.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
Leaving the EU will improve nothing. Not one thing. And it will put many things in peril.
Tell me again why that advisory referendum based on premises demonstrated to be false is so fucking sacrosant, and why this shouldn't be rubbed in the faces of its intransigent fanatics.
the LibDems' decision to revoke Article 50 is going to lose them a lot of votes, especially in their heartland seats in the West country, and many of the MPs who have crossed the floor also come from constituencies which voted Leave by a substantial majority.
Has there been an analysis of how many LibDem voters voted Leave in the 2016 vote? My suspicion is that it would be a very small minority. If so, their decision will not turn off more than a small number of those who vote for them and hence is very unlikely to lose them a lot of votes. It may also gain them some votes from Remainers who would have previously voted Conservative, maybe even some from Labour (that's going to depend on what Labour come up with at their conference). The biggest problem the LibDems have is the fear of being part of a coalition and giving up strongly held LibDem principles for a hand on power. The shadow of 2010-15 is long, and Swinson being part of that doesn't help them.
The constituencies of those who have defected are a different story. By definition, these were constituencies which didn't get enough LibDem votes in 2017, so if these new MPs stand in their current seats they will need to grow the LibDem vote, often substantially, rather than just hold up the previous vote. They may get some votes from the fact that they're a known name (which can often be a significant factor), some from constituents who think they did a good job, some Remain voters who are grateful someone is representing them. But, they may lose some LibDem votes as well, are they going to support LibDem policies or are they going to just be Tories/Labour with a yellow rosette?
the LibDems' decision to revoke Article 50 is going to lose them a lot of votes, especially in their heartland seats in the West country, and many of the MPs who have crossed the floor also come from constituencies which voted Leave by a substantial majority.
Has there been an analysis of how many LibDem voters voted Leave in the 2016 vote? My suspicion is that it would be a very small minority.
Around 30% - though there's no good breakdown of this by region. Still - 42% of Conservative voters from 2015 voted Remain in 2016, so I imagine they are trying to fish in that pond - especially given Swinson's use of tropes defending austerity.
the LibDems' decision to revoke Article 50 is going to lose them a lot of votes, especially in their heartland seats in the West country, and many of the MPs who have crossed the floor also come from constituencies which voted Leave by a substantial majority.
Has there been an analysis of how many LibDem voters voted Leave in the 2016 vote? My suspicion is that it would be a very small minority.
Around 30% - though there's no good breakdown of this by region. Still - 42% of Conservative voters from 2015 voted Remain in 2016, so I imagine they are trying to fish in that pond - especially given Swinson's use of tropes defending austerity.
Thinking back to the 60s and even 50s, the the Liberals were the only party strongly in favour of joining what was then the EEC. To champion Remain is consistent with that.
O there's plenty of malice around this whole crock of Brex-shit, much of it directed at Horrible Johnny Foreigner, but a fair bit towards citizens of the 'United' Kingdom, too...
BTW, why is Piffleglum not being summoned to appear at the Court hearings, currently in progress? I know, of course, that he's not on trial (yet), but surely he should be given a chance to explain himself?
Or have I missed something?
Why would he be summonsed to appear? The prime question at the moment is whether the issue is justiciable or not, not yet getting down to what were the precise terms of the advice given - assuming that evidence of that is admissible.
Not "summoned" but "summonsed", with an extra "s"!
"summonsed; summonsing; summonses"
As in "The court summonses you as an on call juror beginning on the date shown below." (A sentence with which I am far more familiar than I'd like to be.)
The commentators don't seem to have spotted a very interesting remark yesterday by Lord Keen, representing the Government, when he claimed that Parliament had in some sense 'agreed'to be prorogued.
Now that really is a constitutional bombshell. It would mean - and this, remember, is the Government's position - that Parliament can simply ignore the royal command and carry on doing its own thing. To some extent this has always been true, which is why the door of the Commons chamber is shut in the face of Black Rod when he arrives to summon the members to hear the Speech from the Throne; but this assertion means that they can do what they like for just as long as they want, and the Queen can go kick her heels.
(Yes, there is a precedent of sorts in the Canadian Parliament in the 19th Century, when Black Rod had to wait - and wait - and wait - while one of the Canadian Pacific Railway bills was being discussed. But this suggestion is an admission in the clearest terms that Parliament, and not the Executive, is supreme. Which is what the case is about.)
...BTW, why is Piffleglum not being summoned to appear at the Court hearings, currently in progress? I know, of course, that he's not on trial (yet), but surely he should be given a chance to explain himself?
Or have I missed something?
Two reasons.
1. It's unusual for witnesses to be called to give evidence in person in judicial review proceedings. Judicial reviews usually proceed by affidavit. And
2. The hearing this week is an appeal. So fresh evidence is not taken.
To me it seems obvious, by proroguing Parliament for the period he requested, ABdPJ has prevented any Parliamentary vote on Brexit until after the Oct 17th EU summit, unless Parliament somehow throws all convention out of the window and refuses to debate the Queens' Speech until they've had their say on the deal that's been put before the EU (and, I'm not sure what mechanism there could be to do that as debating the speech would be the first order of business when the MPs return to the Commons). What other reason can there be but to stifle Parliamentary examination of his deal? A Queens' Speech a week earlier gives a bit of time, having a deal to examine last week and letting Parliament sit to debate it would have worked (even if that sitting needs to work around party conferences).
As always, @Alan Cresswell is spot on. Well nearly always... but I would go a step further:
There is an argument for having a Queen's Speech soon. This session of Parliament has been too long and there's a lot to do. (Ironically the 'new government argument' is deeply problematic). However, there is no logic at all in having the Queen's Speech before 31st October.
Brexiteers love their WWII references... imagine Churchill calling a Queen's Speech to introduce post-war reconstruction plans on 3rd June 1944...
There is no policy reason to hold a Queen's Speech now. None. Except of course to allow prorogation...
Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
No, but only one side is willing to risk killing members of my family to get the result they want.
So, thick isn't the adjective I'd use.
Some of my lot voted to make the medicines they depend on potentially unavailable. There is no logic in this. It's like a blooming death cult.
... Brexiteers love their WWII references... imagine Churchill calling a Queen's Speech to introduce post-war reconstruction plans on 3rd June 1944...
This drives me nuts. None of them fought in WWII. There is no "we" unless you were actually there. And this insistence that the world owes the UK a living because of events in the previous century is just ... FFS.
When it comes to Brexit, the Ship is a bit of an echo-chamber. Well done to @TheOrganist for being willing to argue for Leave against the majority.
I'm not pro-Leave or pro-Remain. If it had been possible for sensible reform of the EU to take place and for the UK and its governments to adopt a more pragmatic approach to all things emanating from Brussels then of course it would have made sense for the UK to vote to stay in, but for a variety of reasons that didn't happen, and I can see little chance of sufficient change having occurred since then to make it a possibility in the future.
What I can see staring at the UK, and its legal systems, is a total collapse in belief in its electoral processes, and the possibility that each and every election will be followed by endless litigation on the part of those who feel they were "lied to" (since when were manifestos and slogans ever viewed as being Gospel?), a belief that the margin of victory for the "wrong" side was not enough, total disrespect for any part of the electorate that votes the "wrong" way, etc. Worst of all, a belief that any individual with the money can use the legal system to try to enforce their own, personal, belief and political viewpoint to overturn a vote or change a government policy.
That is why I think we have to leave the EU, and sooner rather than later: forget any deal, forget any so-called backstop, it has to happen.
...BTW, why is Piffleglum not being summoned to appear at the Court hearings, currently in progress? I know, of course, that he's not on trial (yet), but surely he should be given a chance to explain himself?
Or have I missed something?
Two reasons.
1. It's unusual for witnesses to be called to give evidence in person in judicial review proceedings. Judicial reviews usually proceed by affidavit. And
2. The hearing this week is an appeal. So fresh evidence is not taken.
Yes, I thought this might be the answer (and thanks to @Dave W to correcting my error regarding 'summonsing').
Brexiteers love their WWII references... imagine Churchill calling a Queen's Speech to introduce post-war reconstruction plans on 3rd June 1944...
AFZ
In fact the Butler Act was first itnroduced to Parliament in 1943, as were the conclusions of the Beveridge report. Attlee's administration was able to get the NHS up-and-running so quickly, together with some other provisions first listed by Beveridge, because the drafting of Green and then White papers had taken place under Churchill while the War was still ongoing.
This drives me nuts. None of them fought in WWII. There is no "we" unless you were actually there. And this insistence that the world owes the UK a living because of events in the previous century is just ... FFS.
I read somewhere that Gove was critical of how Boris was treated in Luxembourg because "we saved them".
Worst of all, a belief that any individual with the money can use the legal system to try to enforce their own, personal, belief and political viewpoint to overturn a vote or change a government policy.
That is why I think we have to leave the EU, and sooner rather than later: forget any deal, forget any so-called backstop, it has to happen.
I think that fear is far more likely to be realised outside the EU than in it, but I also think that ship has sailed.
The really irrational part of your argument is "forget any deal...". Whatever happens, some kind of deal will need to be thrashed out on many levels, unless you intend having the whole of the UK under a hermetically sealed dome. Saying "it has to happen" without any thought at all as to how is unicorn-invoking.
There's stuff publicly available online about the knock-on effects of Brexit on fishing. That's not even considering the no deal option. The types of conflict that could emerge in just that one sector give some idea of what we're heading for in a few weeks.
Yes, yes yes, I know there will end up being some sort of deal worked out, but don't expect A Deal to be finalised before the UK leaves - apart from anything else, Brussels doesn't want it to happen: for the Brussels approach to the UK leaving to work (in other words be as discouraging as possible for any others who might want to quit the club) there has to be maximum uncertainty.
don't expect A Deal to be finalised before the UK leaves
That's because all the time since the WA was rejected has been frittered away, and it hasn't been by the EU side.
- apart from anything else, Brussels doesn't want it to happen.
This is total bullshit. As proved by the fact that Brussels agreed a WA with the representative of the UK.
I've been personally close enough to enough politicians from across the political spectrum, and senior civil servants, to be personally convinced that the prospect of no deal is cause for genuine alarm and consternation on this side of the Channel. Of course they don't want others to leave the club, but the idea that they've deliberately engineered the inevitability of no deal, which will be damaging to themselves (to a lesser extent than the UK, but that doesn't minimise its extent) is ridiculous.
Comments
It's depressingly similar to Trump 2020. There simply is no credible opposition, not least in that populism and its relationship to the media has redefined what "credible" means.
I don't think the outcome of the next GE is clear-cut either way: the LibDems' decision to revoke Article 50 is going to lose them a lot of votes, especially in their heartland seats in the West country, and many of the MPs who have crossed the floor also come from constituencies which voted Leave by a substantial majority.
Frankly, I just wish our politicians would shut up, try to make some sense out of the mess that childish intransigence on both sides has wrought, and stop making this country an international laughing stock.
Vote for me, I lied about everything else but this and it hasn't gone all Mad Max yet ... I won't crumble in a crisis. But I will run away from a few protesters because I can't stand loud noises.
I wouldn't vote for that ... that ... If it was the only thing on the ballot paper.
On the contrary, until leavers accept that around half the population think that their choice is insanely destructive and that they have to try and reach some sort of accommodation rather than stamping their feet and demanding they have their way the divisions will continue. And let's be honest about who whipped up the divisions. It was the tories and their friends in the press: particularly Gove, Johnson, the Mail, Sun, Express and Telegraph.
I agree. I must however point out that the Leave campaigns made a big deal out of sovereignty, but the leave supporters have whinged long and hard when our sovereign body has voted contrary to government motions and policy.
Truly, ye shall reap as ye shall sow.
That boat sailed away when Dave decided to appease elements of his party by having a ridiculous referendum on a subject that hardly anybody in the country could actually analyse and have a reasonable view on and then one side barely campaigned at all and the other side campaigned with lie after lie. The UK is an international laughing stock and it will continue to be so for decades.
Some of our politicians are trying to make the most of it and regain some credibility and some are trying to create a situation that suits themselves and bollocks to the rest of us. Unfortunately the latter group have the ascendancy. Perhaps calling us a laughing stock is kind.
I understand the section about oil refineries is missing from the Operetation Yellowhammer report, so if there are long queues or "NO FUEL" signs at filling stations or fuel rationing of any kind, Boris and his party could be shafted.
Every time they look in the mirror, for starters. One of the occupational hazards of working with organists is that quality seems to be pretty closely correlated with insanity, like you can't play an instrument that requires four limbs effectively and engage with the mundane world too.
EDIT: in fairness I've encountered some terrible organists who were nutters, but the fact remains that I've never encountered a good organist who wasn't at least eccentric.
I find that very easy to believe; anyone who can make all four limbs coordinated in such a ridiculously complex fashion clearly has something wrong with their brain.
AFZ
If the election is after Brexit but not before the sky falls, plan B (or possibly plan A?) is a state of emergency indefinitely keeping the current lot in power, in my view. I don't think they care about the consequences for the hoi polloi as long as they can retain power or money or, preferably, both.
There are a lot of motorists in South-Eastern England, which is Tory heartland. If they can't drive their precious motor cars and don't get Brexit, the right-wing nutters will take to the streets. If a state of emergency is declared the army will take to the streets to keep the right-wing nutters and the left-wing nutters apart. Mind you we don't have enough troops to handle that nowadays.
I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that Cummings is probably a disciple of the Bannon school of thought that only violent upheaval of society will lead to its improvement, and again probably considers himself immune from the nastier side-effects of that.
The army will be too busy running local councils to keep order on the streets.
When it comes to Brexit, the Ship is a bit of an echo-chamber. Well done to @TheOrganist for being willing to argue for Leave against the majority.
Our friends are a mixture of rabid leavers and remainers, plus the disinterested.The bulk of the older generation in our families voted Leave. (Although one lied about it afterwards as they didn't want to upset their grand-children). The rest - who are our age or younger - voted Remain. No one's shifted since the Ref. We keep it together by not talking about it much or focusing on Brexit related things we agree about.
I refuse to fall out with people about this which is why I find some of the language used by both sides so difficult. Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
So, thick isn't the adjective I'd use.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
BTW, why is Piffleglum not being summoned to appear at the Court hearings, currently in progress? I know, of course, that he's not on trial (yet), but surely he should be given a chance to explain himself?
Or have I missed something?
Leaving the EU will improve nothing. Not one thing. And it will put many things in peril.
Tell me again why that advisory referendum based on premises demonstrated to be false is so fucking sacrosant, and why this shouldn't be rubbed in the faces of its intransigent fanatics.
Not sure why you're asking me. I'm with you.
The constituencies of those who have defected are a different story. By definition, these were constituencies which didn't get enough LibDem votes in 2017, so if these new MPs stand in their current seats they will need to grow the LibDem vote, often substantially, rather than just hold up the previous vote. They may get some votes from the fact that they're a known name (which can often be a significant factor), some from constituents who think they did a good job, some Remain voters who are grateful someone is representing them. But, they may lose some LibDem votes as well, are they going to support LibDem policies or are they going to just be Tories/Labour with a yellow rosette?
Around 30% - though there's no good breakdown of this by region. Still - 42% of Conservative voters from 2015 voted Remain in 2016, so I imagine they are trying to fish in that pond - especially given Swinson's use of tropes defending austerity.
Thinking back to the 60s and even 50s, the the Liberals were the only party strongly in favour of joining what was then the EEC. To champion Remain is consistent with that.
Why would he be summonsed to appear? The prime question at the moment is whether the issue is justiciable or not, not yet getting down to what were the precise terms of the advice given - assuming that evidence of that is admissible.
But I take your point - let's wait, and see what the Justices decide.
"summonsed; summonsing; summonses"
As in "The court summonses you as an on call juror beginning on the date shown below." (A sentence with which I am far more familiar than I'd like to be.)
With a stick with an 'orse's 'ead 'andle,
And a ‘deal’ that he never could sell ...
they paid and took this idea to the Circus...
Now that really is a constitutional bombshell. It would mean - and this, remember, is the Government's position - that Parliament can simply ignore the royal command and carry on doing its own thing. To some extent this has always been true, which is why the door of the Commons chamber is shut in the face of Black Rod when he arrives to summon the members to hear the Speech from the Throne; but this assertion means that they can do what they like for just as long as they want, and the Queen can go kick her heels.
(Yes, there is a precedent of sorts in the Canadian Parliament in the 19th Century, when Black Rod had to wait - and wait - and wait - while one of the Canadian Pacific Railway bills was being discussed. But this suggestion is an admission in the clearest terms that Parliament, and not the Executive, is supreme. Which is what the case is about.)
1. It's unusual for witnesses to be called to give evidence in person in judicial review proceedings. Judicial reviews usually proceed by affidavit. And
2. The hearing this week is an appeal. So fresh evidence is not taken.
There is an argument for having a Queen's Speech soon. This session of Parliament has been too long and there's a lot to do. (Ironically the 'new government argument' is deeply problematic). However, there is no logic at all in having the Queen's Speech before 31st October.
Brexiteers love their WWII references... imagine Churchill calling a Queen's Speech to introduce post-war reconstruction plans on 3rd June 1944...
There is no policy reason to hold a Queen's Speech now. None. Except of course to allow prorogation...
AFZ
Some of my lot voted to make the medicines they depend on potentially unavailable. There is no logic in this. It's like a blooming death cult.
I may not agree with them, but I will fight for their right to be allowed to post that it isn't.
This drives me nuts. None of them fought in WWII. There is no "we" unless you were actually there. And this insistence that the world owes the UK a living because of events in the previous century is just ... FFS.
I'm not pro-Leave or pro-Remain. If it had been possible for sensible reform of the EU to take place and for the UK and its governments to adopt a more pragmatic approach to all things emanating from Brussels then of course it would have made sense for the UK to vote to stay in, but for a variety of reasons that didn't happen, and I can see little chance of sufficient change having occurred since then to make it a possibility in the future.
What I can see staring at the UK, and its legal systems, is a total collapse in belief in its electoral processes, and the possibility that each and every election will be followed by endless litigation on the part of those who feel they were "lied to" (since when were manifestos and slogans ever viewed as being Gospel?), a belief that the margin of victory for the "wrong" side was not enough, total disrespect for any part of the electorate that votes the "wrong" way, etc. Worst of all, a belief that any individual with the money can use the legal system to try to enforce their own, personal, belief and political viewpoint to overturn a vote or change a government policy.
That is why I think we have to leave the EU, and sooner rather than later: forget any deal, forget any so-called backstop, it has to happen.
Yes, I thought this might be the answer (and thanks to @Dave W to correcting my error regarding 'summonsing').
In fact the Butler Act was first itnroduced to Parliament in 1943, as were the conclusions of the Beveridge report. Attlee's administration was able to get the NHS up-and-running so quickly, together with some other provisions first listed by Beveridge, because the drafting of Green and then White papers had taken place under Churchill while the War was still ongoing.
I read somewhere that Gove was critical of how Boris was treated in Luxembourg because "we saved them".
I think that fear is far more likely to be realised outside the EU than in it, but I also think that ship has sailed.
The really irrational part of your argument is "forget any deal...". Whatever happens, some kind of deal will need to be thrashed out on many levels, unless you intend having the whole of the UK under a hermetically sealed dome. Saying "it has to happen" without any thought at all as to how is unicorn-invoking.
There's stuff publicly available online about the knock-on effects of Brexit on fishing. That's not even considering the no deal option. The types of conflict that could emerge in just that one sector give some idea of what we're heading for in a few weeks.
That's because all the time since the WA was rejected has been frittered away, and it hasn't been by the EU side.
This is total bullshit. As proved by the fact that Brussels agreed a WA with the representative of the UK.
I've been personally close enough to enough politicians from across the political spectrum, and senior civil servants, to be personally convinced that the prospect of no deal is cause for genuine alarm and consternation on this side of the Channel. Of course they don't want others to leave the club, but the idea that they've deliberately engineered the inevitability of no deal, which will be damaging to themselves (to a lesser extent than the UK, but that doesn't minimise its extent) is ridiculous.