I used the word (with derisory inflection) to contrast the difference between the perpetual blether and dither of Swinson, Corbyn, etc, etc, etc, and the (current) PM. I make no comment on whether or not his actions will prove to be a good idea, but simply note that at least he has acted in a decisive and planned fashion - something that can't be said of the other camp.
I agree that the opposition have dithered, but it must be acknowledged that those in power have a lot more opportunity for decisive action. Decisive action is not in and of itself meritorious. The question is to what end it's decisive, but apparently you don't know.
This action is certainly decisive, but I doubt it was devised by Boris. He is being left to spin it. Again, there is not much real accountability here for those actually making the decisions, in my view.
I think that ALL parties would have been better served if they had (to use broadcasting terms) spent longer in receive mode and far, far less in transmit. These senior politicians - in all countries - all seem terrified of ever rowing back on a statement, seeing it not as a sign that they have had a genuine change of mind but rather as a sign of weakness
I may not have been in the room with Barnier, but I've been in the room in meetings in which he, or at least his office, was called (and answered). What evidence do you have to offer that the EU representatives have not spent time in "receive" mode? Can you give examples of the kind of statement you think they should be rowing back?
From my perspective, the EU has been unaccustomedly clear in its message. Unlike the UK, its red lines are the rules of the club and nothing else. It has already agreed to extend the deadline. Which red lines would you like it to change?
The Remain camp (for want of a better description) is like jelly - it is without structure or form and tends to slide in all directions. They have had two-and-a-half years to get their act together - they've even had so much help from Speaker Bercow that some might call it connivance - yet still no coherent plan, either for what to do to thwart leaving or to propose a credible alternative to Mrs May's "Deal" (all versions thereof) which could get majority support in the House.
The virtue-signalling from Jo Swinson and the like have been a godsend for Boris & Co - every plan, every proposal (however hare-brained) has been publicised; the Labour Party has been in complete disarray, unable to come up with any agreement, just confusing and changing waffle; Nicola Sturgeon meanwhile has thought it far more important to bring forward to issue of another Scottish referendum, rather than working with anyone else on the current crisis - I could go on - but the end result of all this posturing and aimless, rudderless grandstanding has made pulling off this stunt as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
As for it being unconstitutional, I don't think so, and nor apparently does The Queen - and she probably knows far more about constitutional history and precedent than the whole pack of them put together.
The complaints about Parliament losing time is just nonsense: with what is called "Party Conference Season" (and the rest of us might call extra holiday called something else) and the traditional week-long recess between the end of one session and the State Opening, the "time" being lost comes down to days.
I hate to say this because, just when you thought our politicians could do nothing else, or worse, to attract the derision of the wider world we've been proved wrong, but the action taken yesterday looks to be lawful, the time "lost" a mirage, and effectively a master-stroke of efficiency versus a rolling maul of ineptitude.
And if Labour / Corbyn etc had done this would you be okay with it then?
Or are you, like many others, re-writing the constitution depending on whether you agree with who's attempting to wiggle through it in order to get their own way.
Deciding whether he, as Leader, was pro Remain or Leave.
He campaigned for remain.
Or having the balls to say, honestly, that as someone who has always been anti-EU he found it impossible to pass a manifesto that pledged to implement the result of the referendum.
The manifesto labour fought the last general election on, was to leave the EU - via so called ‘soft Brexit’. The Labour position on the government’s deal was that it had to deliver what the government had previously said it would deliver, or they wouldn’t vote for it.
Sinking his pride and being prepared to engage with Jo Swinson's attempt to get either Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman installed as PM.
What makes you think either of those people could command a majority ? Jo Swinson was so well informed that despite apparently being for remain no matter what she wanted to support Ken Clarke whose position is to exit. (Also, any particular reason why Clarke, Swinson & Harman shouldn’t “sink their pride” and support a Corbyn led caretaker government to deliver what they said they wanted ?)
What is it that makes it so difficult to understand an if x then y position ? People present labour policy as if it’s sodoku - it’s really not that complicated.
Or are you, like many others, re-writing the constitution depending on whether you agree with who's attempting to wiggle through it in order to get their own way.
You can’t re-write a constitution that isn’t written.
But de Pfeffel is bringing a new precedent to bear and this very much undermines democracy.
Prorogue parliament for five weeks any time things look like they aren’t going the way the PM wants? That’s a dangerous precedent.
... I make no comment on whether or not his actions will prove to be a good idea, but simply note that at least he has acted in a decisive and planned fashion - something that can't be said of the other camp. ...
Today is the Beheading of John the Baptist. The reading is Matt 14:1-12. Herod acted decisively. He also did so, so as to appear decisive to those he wanted to impress. As an absolute ruler, he acted in accordance with his constitution. That did not make what he did any less wicked.
There is no virtue, nothing special, about being decisive.
@Tubbs Yes, my reaction would have been exactly the same if Remain and Corbyn had acted like this.
I've had enough of the whole grisly business. I have two children who are so p*ssed off with it that they're seriously exploring the possibility of emigrating* - not just Brexit but the whole underlying shambles - and to be blunt if I were 10 years younger I'd join them.
* and they'd be joining a number of their friends who've already left, mostly for Australia.
Deciding whether he, as Leader, was pro Remain or Leave.
He campaigned for remain.
Yes, in 2016. But since then? Even Labour members have remarked that he seems unable to make up his mind.
Or having the balls to say, honestly, that as someone who has always been anti-EU he found it impossible to pass a manifesto that pledged to implement the result of the referendum.
The manifesto labour fought the last general election on, was to leave the EU - via so called ‘soft Brexit’. The Labour position on the government’s deal was that it had to deliver what the government had previously said it would deliver, or they wouldn’t vote for it.
Yes, I know. But from before he entered Parliament Corbyn has been firmly, and vocally, anti-EU - which would be OK but his party was, for the most part, definitely pro Remain.
Sinking his pride and being prepared to engage with Jo Swinson's attempt to get either Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman installed as PM.
What makes you think either of those people could command a majority ? Jo Swinson was so well informed that despite apparently being for remain no matter what she wanted to support Ken Clarke whose position is to exit. (Also, any particular reason why Clarke, Swinson & Harman shouldn’t “sink their pride” and support a Corbyn led caretaker government to deliver what they said they wanted ?)
Not me, YouGov found there was quite a bit of support, if a way could be found of getting it done, to have an interim PM installed who would have support from all parties. Clarke, as Father of the House, and Harman, longest-serving Labour MP, got high levels of all-party support. Ken Clarke's position is not to exit at any cost, he is a life-long pro-Eu supporter.
As for people switching to support Corbyn, they polled on that and he scored lower than Boris or even May.
What is it that makes it so difficult to understand an if x then y position ? People present labour policy as if it’s sodoku - it’s really not that complicated.
I do understand an if x occurs then y results position: the trouble is that isn't what is on offer because until the UK leaves - if the UK leaves - no one knows what will happen. Would that it were Sudoko - I can zip through them just fine.
@Tubbs Yes, my reaction would have been exactly the same if Remain and Corbyn had acted like this.
I've had enough of the whole grisly business. I have two children who are so p*ssed off with it that they're seriously exploring the possibility of emigrating* - not just Brexit but the whole underlying shambles - and to be blunt if I were 10 years younger I'd join them.
* and they'd be joining a number of their friends who've already left, mostly for Australia.
Well, it may be permissible under the letter of the law, but not the spirit. And Remain / Corbyn wouldn’t have needed too as we’d all just be getting on with our lives ...
Good luck. Unless you’ve got the relevant skills, savings, are happy to wait then able to go at very short notice, Australia appears to only be allowing people in for about three years tops if an employer sponsors them.
Or are you, like many others, re-writing the constitution depending on whether you agree with who's attempting to wiggle through it in order to get their own way.
You can’t re-write a constitution that isn’t written.
But de Pfeffel is bringing a new precedent to bear and this very much undermines democracy.
Prorogue parliament for five weeks any time things look like they aren’t going the way the PM wants? That’s a dangerous precedent.
The UK Constitution consists of a collection of Acts of Parliament, but mostly it consists of convention and precedent. You re-write such a constitution by setting new precedents. To protect the Constitution we need to try and prevent those un-precedented actions, or failing that to somehow work to establish that those actions should not be taken as a precedent - which could mean waiting for rational politicians to regain control and get things written into Acts of Parliament that specifically exclude the unprecedented actions of the current shower. Not only the current act of proroguing Parliament at a crucial time for a period far in excess of what's required, but also the opinion poll of 2016.
Also, given the frothing lunatics just elected in Oz there's a proverb about frying pans and fires that seems pertinent.
Well, given the calibre of lunatic BJ is, I think it is more like out of the fire and into another fire. But your point is valid. We are kinda fucked down here, too.
But ... New Zealand is not far off. Unfortunately, the super-rich preppers discovered it awhile ago, so they will no doubt fuck it up presently. Being, as they are, invariably bloody awful people.
Yes, I can't remember the man's name, but a very rich friend of Trump's settled here recently. While I welcome immigrants and refugees I am more than willing to make an exception in the case of such people.
It’S all very well going round saying Labour should have done this or that, or Corbyn should do the other, but how? They are in opposition. They do not have the same powers. If they are going to get together with other parties then that needs working out. What other problems are there to stop it happening besides some not liking Corbyn? Yes I am a Labour voter but really you would think it was simple by listening to some on here.
It’S all very well going round saying Labour should have done this or that, or Corbyn should do the other, but how? They are in opposition. They do not have the same powers. If they are going to get together with other parties then that needs working out. What other problems are there to stop it happening besides some not liking Corbyn? Yes I am a Labour voter but really you would think it was simple by listening to some on here.
For 3 years, Corbyn hasn't done an effective job as leader of the opposition because he hasn't opposed effectively. He's twiddled round the edges because he's equivocal on the issue that really matters.
Any of the other 3 candidates for leadership in 2015, even Burnham, would have done a better job. Milliband would have done a better job if he hadn't resigned.
As for it being unconstitutional, I don't think so, and nor apparently does The Queen - and she probably knows far more about constitutional history and precedent than the whole pack of them put together.
The problem is that the Constitution is held together by gentlemen's agreements not to do things that are lawful but dangerous, e.g. AFAIK there's nothing to prevent a party with sufficient MPs from legislating to have elections every 20 years instead of every 5, and then using the Parliament Act to get it through the Lords. Mr Johnson is proving, in case one was in any doubt on the point, that he isn't in fact a gentleman.
I agree with you (possibly for different reasons) that Parliament is an omnishambles. The problem is that Mr Johnson's authority derives from precisely that Parliament. He is the rotten fruit of the rotten tree, trying to saw away the branch from which he sprang*.
(Actually, I would have a bit more respect for him if he said 'This is necessary to prevent Remoaner MPs from thwarting the democratically expressed will of the people'. Claiming this is all just business as usual and necessary for his exciting Queen's Speech shows a Putinesque degree of mendacity, i.e. so contemptuous of the truth that he doesn't even bother to make the lie plausible.)
(Actually, I would have a bit more respect for him if he said 'This is necessary to prevent Remoaner MPs from thwarting the democratically expressed will of the people'. Claiming this is all just business as usual and necessary for his exciting Queen's Speech shows a Putinesque degree of mendacity, i.e. so contemptuous of the truth that he doesn't even bother to make the lie plausible.)
I agree entirely. There is (just) a case to be made for the former, none at all for the latter.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is absolutely correct when attempting to justify prorogation that “Parliament has been very good at saying what it doesn’t want, but it’s been awful at saying what it wants - that’s the reality” (source). If one takes the view that the referendum result must be implemented without further delay, it's not unreasonable to prevent too many cooks spoiling the broth.
Whether the hamfisted and dishonest way this is being done, with all the damage to precedent several have commented on, is a good thing is another matter.
He is the rotten fruit of the rotten tree, trying to saw away the branch from which he sprang.
If one takes the view that the referendum result must be implemented without further delay, it's not unreasonable to prevent too many cooks spoiling the broth.
I note you only consider 'reasonableness' after the the view was taken.
In a case of this significance I'd be gobsmacked is the Scottish judge, Lord Docherty, gave such an interim ruling unless he felt that the case being brought was unlikely to succeed.
If one takes the view that the referendum result must be implemented without further delay, it's not unreasonable to prevent too many cooks spoiling the broth.
I note you only consider 'reasonableness' after the the view was taken.
Well yes. I subscribe to the policy of not thinking all those l disagree with are totally dumb, and try and understand their reasoning.
In any crisis there comes a point where too many voices can be a bad thing, and l can see how some might justify prorogation on those grounds.
Although as Ricardus has noted, those weren't the official grounds given, and therein lies the problem.
is proving, in case one was in any doubt on the point, that he isn't in fact a gentleman.
I agree with you (possibly for different reasons) that Parliament is an omnishambles. The problem is that Mr Johnson's authority derives from precisely that Parliament. He is the rotten fruit of the rotten tree, trying to saw away the branch from which he sprang*.
* Possibly losing track of the metaphor here ...
"On which he's sitting"? Or more closely to your post "which bore him"?
In a case of this significance I'd be gobsmacked is the Scottish judge, Lord Docherty, gave such an interim ruling unless he felt that the case being brought was unlikely to succeed.
Actually given that a full hearing is now going to take place on Tuesday, it is hard to make a case for an interim ruling which would have not made any significant difference to anything that might or might not have happened in the interim period.
The problem is that the Constitution is held together by gentlemen's agreements not to do things that are lawful but dangerous, e.g. AFAIK there's nothing to prevent a party with sufficient MPs from legislating to have elections every 20 years instead of every 5, and then using the Parliament Act to get it through the Lords. Mr Johnson is proving, in case one was in any doubt on the point, that he isn't in fact a gentleman...
Quite. Mr de Piffle Johnson may have been to Eton. He may have a plummy voice. But he's not a gentleman in any sense of the word. His word is not his bond. The way he relates to women demonstrates that he is a cad.
Changing the subject, I'm not confident about the cases that are running. This isn't the sort of area the law deals with. There may be a maxim,
"Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy."
I am so bored of the It's all Corbyn's fault argument.
I definitely would have preferred Corbyn to be totally anti-Brexit from the start but with some caveats, he has opposed the government's worst excesses.
As for it being unconstitutional, I don't think so, and nor apparently does The Queen - and she probably knows far more about constitutional history and precedent than the whole pack of them put together.
The problem is that the Constitution is held together by gentlemen's agreements not to do things that are lawful but dangerous, e.g. AFAIK there's nothing to prevent a party with sufficient MPs from legislating to have elections every 20 years instead of every 5, and then using the Parliament Act to get it through the Lords. Mr Johnson is proving, in case one was in any doubt on the point, that he isn't in fact a gentleman.
I agree with you (possibly for different reasons) that Parliament is an omnishambles. The problem is that Mr Johnson's authority derives from precisely that Parliament. He is the rotten fruit of the rotten tree, trying to saw away the branch from which he sprang*.
(Actually, I would have a bit more respect for him if he said 'This is necessary to prevent Remoaner MPs from thwarting the democratically expressed will of the people'. Claiming this is all just business as usual and necessary for his exciting Queen's Speech shows a Putinesque degree of mendacity, i.e. so contemptuous of the truth that he doesn't even bother to make the lie plausible.)
* Possibly losing track of the metaphor here ...
Which is the problem ... Johnson's team are also talking about ignoring a vote of no confidence, telling the Queen not to sign any legislation outlawing no deal, creating extra bank holidays so the the Lord's won't sit or extra Lords to vote things down ...
Governance of the UK assumes that everyone will act with a degree of good-will and not take advantage of loopholes etc. Johnson is doing the reverse in order to get his own way.
Any statement by Johnson that this is about preventing Remoaners etc from thwarting the will of the people is so much pish. Many of the people who are trying to stop No Deal have accepted that Brexit must happen. The objection is to a form of Brexit that was never mentioned during the Ref and that many of the people driving it admit will be incredibly damaging to the UK. (Looking at you Gove, Rudd, Morgan, Hancock et all ... But who needs principles when you have a Ministerial car!)
The man's a fecking liar and the Tories seem to be heading straight towards some kind of Riechstag Fire moment.
I am so bored of the It's all Corbyn's fault argument.
I definitely would have preferred Corbyn to be totally anti-Brexit from the start but with some caveats, he has opposed the government's worst excesses.
No, sorry, I was wrong, it's all Corbyn's fault...
AFZ
If a crime occurs and you had the means and opportunity to prevent it then it's valid for the victim to ask why you didn't do so. Pointing out that it's the criminal who is to blame isn't actually answering that question.
Over the past three years the opposition parties have had the means and opportunity to prevent a no deal Brexit (and even Brexit itself, for that matter). At no point have they chosen to do so, and frankly there's no reason to suppose that they'd do so were yet another extension to be agreed. If they genuinely believe that the single most important thing right now is to stop no deal Brexit, they still have time to do so by winning a VONC and uniting behind an alternative leader, or even by using Boris' gambit against him and using the fact that there's going to be a new Parliamentary session to bring the Withdrawal Act back and vote it through (the Speaker had only barred it from returning during the current session).
Boris has said exactly what he's going to do and when. He's shown parliament exactly how many days they have left to do something about it. Rees-Mogg has gone on record all but double-daring the opposition to use that time to try something.
We're in a situation where a mad dog is running wild and attacking people in the High Street, the half-dozen animal control officers at the scene are all arguing about how best to stop it rather than actually, you know, stopping it, and any time someone yells at them because he got hurt they're saying "hey, it was the dog that bit you, not me".
How have remain MPs been able to stop Brexit? They have tried several ways but each time it has been thwarted. The government has agreed a day for Brexit. That is that. They cannot do anything until they return anyway. If the government wins the Vote of no confidence the opposition have little else to do.
We're in a situation where a mad dog is running wild and attacking people in the High Street, the half-dozen animal control officers at the scene are all arguing about how best to stop it rather than actually, you know, stopping it, and any time someone yells at them because he got hurt they're saying "hey, it was the dog that bit you, not me".
Meanwhile, half the people in the High Street are attacking the animal control officers every time it looks like they're within range of the dog, and shouting at the dog to bite harder, even though they're getting bit too.
The problem with Marvin's analogy is that Animal Control Officers have lots of power and options. In our Parliamentary system, there are very few such options even for the Leader of HM Opposition.
Whilst I don't think Corbyn has always made the right decisions, there thus far has been to proper explanation of what steps he should have taken and exactly how that would have made a difference. Not by anyone who actually understands how our Parliament actually works...
Meanwhile, the BBC radio news bulletin was reporting this evening that Mr Johnson has said that moves by the opposition parties make No Deal more likely.
Translation: As your Prime Minister I refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of MY actions.
To me, this is the perfect summary of why Bor*s is singularly unqualified to be PM.
... Meanwhile, the BBC radio news bulletin was reporting this evening that Mr Johnson has said that moves by the opposition parties make No Deal more likely. ...
To misquote the late Mandy Rice-Davies.
"Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"
He was on television this evening telling some children that he was going to going to put lots of money into schools.
They didn't believe him either.
Do you believe he has, or is even capable of imagining anything that could be described as "a bold and imaginative domestic legislative agenda"?
Governance of the UK assumes that everyone will act with a degree of good-will and not take advantage of loopholes etc. Johnson is doing the reverse in order to get his own way.
I wanted to respond to this properly but all good governance depends upon this and a written codified constitution doesn't protect as much as this seems to imply.
Ultimately the survival of any democracy depends on the Army not deciding they can run things better.* In one sense power always extends out of the barrel of a gun.
Let me give you two examples as to why a written Constitution still depends on Actors of Good Faith. I don't think it controversial to say that the US Constitution is the most famous of its kind. Whilst it's certainly not perfect, having read a couple of excellent books on impeachment, I have developed a new respect for it; for the wisdom and foresight that the framers tried to bring to write a document that would give necessary powers to offices but always provide proper checks on those powers.
The Impeachment clauses are a really good example of this. There is compelling evidence that Trump has committed impeachable offences. Both in terms of misdemeanors in order to obtain his office and in abuses of power once he obtained it. If you don't think that, then you are almost certainly not familiar with the Mueller report. Thus - it is the case that Trump should be impeached by the House and then convicted and removed from office by the Senate. That is actually the constitutional responsibility placed on Congress. I think we all know that it is unlikely to go that far - because too many people (especially in the Senate) are not acting in Good Faith.
Similarly, in 2000, on purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida. There are reasonable arguments to be had about the election process but the idea that a count should be stopped is an affront to democracy. Again people holding key powers not acting in Good Faith.
Having a formal, written constitution does not remove this problem.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that the vagaries of our unwritten (or more precisely, vaguely written in lots of different places and held together by conventions and duct tape) constitution make us more vulnerable to such abuses, I would agree. I am an advocate of Constitutional reform (and have been since I was a teenager and first started to appreciate these things.
We are especially vulnerable to people in key positions not acting in good faith. We have a Prime Minister who has strong form on this. None of this is surprising.
AFZ
*There have definitely been times when I have felt that the Army would do a much better job of running the country. Of course, the process in more important than the outcome in this context and hence I, like most of my countrymen would be horrifed if the Generals decided to take over...
Whilst I don't think Corbyn has always made the right decisions, there thus far has been to proper explanation of what steps he should have taken and exactly how that would have made a difference. Not by anyone who actually understands how our Parliament actually works...
I’d say steps he and Labour could have taken to date that would have greatly reduced the risk of no deal are:
Not vote for the referendum in the first place.
Not agree to abide by the referendum result in his 2017 manifesto.
Not vote to trigger A50.
Speak out clearly against Brexit, and/or call for Ref2 rather than trying to get a General Election.
Vote for the WA (avoids no deal).
Agree to support someone else after a successful VONC rather than insisting that only he can lead any putative alternative government.
I’m sure he has good political reasons for not doing any of those things. But that means he thinks those reasons are more important than avoiding a no-deal brexit.
From the perspective of what happens on November 1st, yes I do. The fact that it would mean we don’t instantly lose every single trade deal overnight and have to start over from scratch is a significant point in its favour.
That doesn't make it worse than no deal, which is also a constitutional clusterfuck (especially if it's carried through by an unprecedented long proroguing of Parliament at a time when there wa a small chance of Parliament acting to avert it)
@Doublethink Alright, but the WA was designed as a provisional agreement to facilitate leaving.
Arguing it (or the backstop) is "anti-democratic" is assuming bad faith on the part of the other party in negotiating a new treaty. The WA at least gives the chance of securing a new one one. And as a last resort, Article 50 or no, I don't see why reneging on it would be any worse, or more difficult, than No Deal with all the diplomatic, let alone practical, fallout that is likely to entail.
Saying people should have voted for the withdrawal agreement is like saying you should shoot yourself in the foot to avoid the risk of shooting yourself in the head in the future. How about we try and find a way of avoiding shooting ourselves at all?
In any case there is every chance that it is only Corbyn pledging to respect the result that cost the tories their majority in 2017. Without that decision we'd likely already be out and the tories would be busily flogging our remaining assets to the Americans.
Comments
I agree that the opposition have dithered, but it must be acknowledged that those in power have a lot more opportunity for decisive action. Decisive action is not in and of itself meritorious. The question is to what end it's decisive, but apparently you don't know.
This action is certainly decisive, but I doubt it was devised by Boris. He is being left to spin it. Again, there is not much real accountability here for those actually making the decisions, in my view.
I may not have been in the room with Barnier, but I've been in the room in meetings in which he, or at least his office, was called (and answered). What evidence do you have to offer that the EU representatives have not spent time in "receive" mode? Can you give examples of the kind of statement you think they should be rowing back?
From my perspective, the EU has been unaccustomedly clear in its message. Unlike the UK, its red lines are the rules of the club and nothing else. It has already agreed to extend the deadline. Which red lines would you like it to change?
And if Labour / Corbyn etc had done this would you be okay with it then?
Or are you, like many others, re-writing the constitution depending on whether you agree with who's attempting to wiggle through it in order to get their own way.
He campaigned for remain.
The manifesto labour fought the last general election on, was to leave the EU - via so called ‘soft Brexit’. The Labour position on the government’s deal was that it had to deliver what the government had previously said it would deliver, or they wouldn’t vote for it.
What makes you think either of those people could command a majority ? Jo Swinson was so well informed that despite apparently being for remain no matter what she wanted to support Ken Clarke whose position is to exit. (Also, any particular reason why Clarke, Swinson & Harman shouldn’t “sink their pride” and support a Corbyn led caretaker government to deliver what they said they wanted ?)
What is it that makes it so difficult to understand an if x then y position ? People present labour policy as if it’s sodoku - it’s really not that complicated.
You can’t re-write a constitution that isn’t written.
But de Pfeffel is bringing a new precedent to bear and this very much undermines democracy.
Prorogue parliament for five weeks any time things look like they aren’t going the way the PM wants? That’s a dangerous precedent.
In a nutshell, Boris and his ilk have taken what is supposed to be a feature as a bug to be exploited.
There is no virtue, nothing special, about being decisive.
' to speak the truth and boldly to rebuke vice...'
Just saying....-;)
I've had enough of the whole grisly business. I have two children who are so p*ssed off with it that they're seriously exploring the possibility of emigrating* - not just Brexit but the whole underlying shambles - and to be blunt if I were 10 years younger I'd join them.
* and they'd be joining a number of their friends who've already left, mostly for Australia.
Yes, in 2016. But since then? Even Labour members have remarked that he seems unable to make up his mind.
Yes, I know. But from before he entered Parliament Corbyn has been firmly, and vocally, anti-EU - which would be OK but his party was, for the most part, definitely pro Remain.
Not me, YouGov found there was quite a bit of support, if a way could be found of getting it done, to have an interim PM installed who would have support from all parties. Clarke, as Father of the House, and Harman, longest-serving Labour MP, got high levels of all-party support. Ken Clarke's position is not to exit at any cost, he is a life-long pro-Eu supporter.
As for people switching to support Corbyn, they polled on that and he scored lower than Boris or even May.
I do understand an if x occurs then y results position: the trouble is that isn't what is on offer because until the UK leaves - if the UK leaves - no one knows what will happen. Would that it were Sudoko - I can zip through them just fine.
Well, it may be permissible under the letter of the law, but not the spirit. And Remain / Corbyn wouldn’t have needed too as we’d all just be getting on with our lives ...
Good luck. Unless you’ve got the relevant skills, savings, are happy to wait then able to go at very short notice, Australia appears to only be allowing people in for about three years tops if an employer sponsors them.
Well, given the calibre of lunatic BJ is, I think it is more like out of the fire and into another fire. But your point is valid. We are kinda fucked down here, too.
But ... New Zealand is not far off. Unfortunately, the super-rich preppers discovered it awhile ago, so they will no doubt fuck it up presently. Being, as they are, invariably bloody awful people.
Any of the other 3 candidates for leadership in 2015, even Burnham, would have done a better job. Milliband would have done a better job if he hadn't resigned.
The problem is that the Constitution is held together by gentlemen's agreements not to do things that are lawful but dangerous, e.g. AFAIK there's nothing to prevent a party with sufficient MPs from legislating to have elections every 20 years instead of every 5, and then using the Parliament Act to get it through the Lords. Mr Johnson is proving, in case one was in any doubt on the point, that he isn't in fact a gentleman.
I agree with you (possibly for different reasons) that Parliament is an omnishambles. The problem is that Mr Johnson's authority derives from precisely that Parliament. He is the rotten fruit of the rotten tree, trying to saw away the branch from which he sprang*.
(Actually, I would have a bit more respect for him if he said 'This is necessary to prevent Remoaner MPs from thwarting the democratically expressed will of the people'. Claiming this is all just business as usual and necessary for his exciting Queen's Speech shows a Putinesque degree of mendacity, i.e. so contemptuous of the truth that he doesn't even bother to make the lie plausible.)
* Possibly losing track of the metaphor here ...
* Possibly losing track of the metaphor here ...
Maybe, but an appealing image, nonetheless.
I agree entirely. There is (just) a case to be made for the former, none at all for the latter.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is absolutely correct when attempting to justify prorogation that “Parliament has been very good at saying what it doesn’t want, but it’s been awful at saying what it wants - that’s the reality” (source). If one takes the view that the referendum result must be implemented without further delay, it's not unreasonable to prevent too many cooks spoiling the broth.
Whether the hamfisted and dishonest way this is being done, with all the damage to precedent several have commented on, is a good thing is another matter.
Seen yesterday.
The Scottish high court has just ruled against the challenge to the prorogation.
Well yes. I subscribe to the policy of not thinking all those l disagree with are totally dumb, and try and understand their reasoning.
In any crisis there comes a point where too many voices can be a bad thing, and l can see how some might justify prorogation on those grounds.
Although as Ricardus has noted, those weren't the official grounds given, and therein lies the problem.
"On which he's sitting"? Or more closely to your post "which bore him"?
Actually given that a full hearing is now going to take place on Tuesday, it is hard to make a case for an interim ruling which would have not made any significant difference to anything that might or might not have happened in the interim period.
Changing the subject, I'm not confident about the cases that are running. This isn't the sort of area the law deals with. There may be a maxim, but it doesn't have much teeth.
I definitely would have preferred Corbyn to be totally anti-Brexit from the start but with some caveats, he has opposed the government's worst excesses.
However let's just recap why we are here:
Cameron's Hubris
May's Intransigence
Johnson's Megalomania.
No, sorry, I was wrong, it's all Corbyn's fault...
AFZ
Which is the problem ... Johnson's team are also talking about ignoring a vote of no confidence, telling the Queen not to sign any legislation outlawing no deal, creating extra bank holidays so the the Lord's won't sit or extra Lords to vote things down ...
Governance of the UK assumes that everyone will act with a degree of good-will and not take advantage of loopholes etc. Johnson is doing the reverse in order to get his own way.
Any statement by Johnson that this is about preventing Remoaners etc from thwarting the will of the people is so much pish. Many of the people who are trying to stop No Deal have accepted that Brexit must happen. The objection is to a form of Brexit that was never mentioned during the Ref and that many of the people driving it admit will be incredibly damaging to the UK. (Looking at you Gove, Rudd, Morgan, Hancock et all ... But who needs principles when you have a Ministerial car!)
The man's a fecking liar and the Tories seem to be heading straight towards some kind of Riechstag Fire moment.
If a crime occurs and you had the means and opportunity to prevent it then it's valid for the victim to ask why you didn't do so. Pointing out that it's the criminal who is to blame isn't actually answering that question.
Over the past three years the opposition parties have had the means and opportunity to prevent a no deal Brexit (and even Brexit itself, for that matter). At no point have they chosen to do so, and frankly there's no reason to suppose that they'd do so were yet another extension to be agreed. If they genuinely believe that the single most important thing right now is to stop no deal Brexit, they still have time to do so by winning a VONC and uniting behind an alternative leader, or even by using Boris' gambit against him and using the fact that there's going to be a new Parliamentary session to bring the Withdrawal Act back and vote it through (the Speaker had only barred it from returning during the current session).
Boris has said exactly what he's going to do and when. He's shown parliament exactly how many days they have left to do something about it. Rees-Mogg has gone on record all but double-daring the opposition to use that time to try something.
We're in a situation where a mad dog is running wild and attacking people in the High Street, the half-dozen animal control officers at the scene are all arguing about how best to stop it rather than actually, you know, stopping it, and any time someone yells at them because he got hurt they're saying "hey, it was the dog that bit you, not me".
Meanwhile, half the people in the High Street are attacking the animal control officers every time it looks like they're within range of the dog, and shouting at the dog to bite harder, even though they're getting bit too.
That's the situation we're in.
Will no-one rid us of this Pestiferous Piffler?
(By lawful means, of course).
Whilst I don't think Corbyn has always made the right decisions, there thus far has been to proper explanation of what steps he should have taken and exactly how that would have made a difference. Not by anyone who actually understands how our Parliament actually works...
Meanwhile, the BBC radio news bulletin was reporting this evening that Mr Johnson has said that moves by the opposition parties make No Deal more likely.
Translation: As your Prime Minister I refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of MY actions.
To me, this is the perfect summary of why Bor*s is singularly unqualified to be PM.
AFZ
They didn't believe him either.
Do you believe he has, or is even capable of imagining anything that could be described as "a bold and imaginative domestic legislative agenda"?
Or, if he does, then it's only going to benefit his rich pals. The rest of us will get fu*ked, as usual.
I wanted to respond to this properly but all good governance depends upon this and a written codified constitution doesn't protect as much as this seems to imply.
Ultimately the survival of any democracy depends on the Army not deciding they can run things better.* In one sense power always extends out of the barrel of a gun.
Let me give you two examples as to why a written Constitution still depends on Actors of Good Faith. I don't think it controversial to say that the US Constitution is the most famous of its kind. Whilst it's certainly not perfect, having read a couple of excellent books on impeachment, I have developed a new respect for it; for the wisdom and foresight that the framers tried to bring to write a document that would give necessary powers to offices but always provide proper checks on those powers.
The Impeachment clauses are a really good example of this. There is compelling evidence that Trump has committed impeachable offences. Both in terms of misdemeanors in order to obtain his office and in abuses of power once he obtained it. If you don't think that, then you are almost certainly not familiar with the Mueller report. Thus - it is the case that Trump should be impeached by the House and then convicted and removed from office by the Senate. That is actually the constitutional responsibility placed on Congress. I think we all know that it is unlikely to go that far - because too many people (especially in the Senate) are not acting in Good Faith.
Similarly, in 2000, on purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida. There are reasonable arguments to be had about the election process but the idea that a count should be stopped is an affront to democracy. Again people holding key powers not acting in Good Faith.
Having a formal, written constitution does not remove this problem.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that the vagaries of our unwritten (or more precisely, vaguely written in lots of different places and held together by conventions and duct tape) constitution make us more vulnerable to such abuses, I would agree. I am an advocate of Constitutional reform (and have been since I was a teenager and first started to appreciate these things.
We are especially vulnerable to people in key positions not acting in good faith. We have a Prime Minister who has strong form on this. None of this is surprising.
AFZ
*There have definitely been times when I have felt that the Army would do a much better job of running the country. Of course, the process in more important than the outcome in this context and hence I, like most of my countrymen would be horrifed if the Generals decided to take over...
I’d say steps he and Labour could have taken to date that would have greatly reduced the risk of no deal are:
I’m sure he has good political reasons for not doing any of those things. But that means he thinks those reasons are more important than avoiding a no-deal brexit.
Constitutionally, it’s a clusterfuck.
Arguing it (or the backstop) is "anti-democratic" is assuming bad faith on the part of the other party in negotiating a new treaty. The WA at least gives the chance of securing a new one one. And as a last resort, Article 50 or no, I don't see why reneging on it would be any worse, or more difficult, than No Deal with all the diplomatic, let alone practical, fallout that is likely to entail.
In other words, I agree with @Marvin the Martian here.
In any case there is every chance that it is only Corbyn pledging to respect the result that cost the tories their majority in 2017. Without that decision we'd likely already be out and the tories would be busily flogging our remaining assets to the Americans.