Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

robinph wrote: »

Just noticed in one of the still photos on the BBC feed of what is happening that Ken Clarke is still sat on the government benches next to Theresa May. They have obviously not felt confident enough to remove him to the other side just yet.

They can't. MP's are free to sit where they wish. Ken Clarke may have lost the whip but he is still a member of the Conservative party and even if he was kicked out all together he said last night that he still defines himself as a Conservative so sitting where he has always sat is actually a protest to highlight that they can try to move the Tory party to the far right all they like but he and others who continue to define themselves as conservatives will sit right where they always have as they haven't changed their values.

prawnsambo wrote: »

And how do you measure that? The PM must assume the support of their party and partners until proven otherwise. And the only way to prove otherwise is to have continuous votes of confidence. Technically that's possible, except when parliament is not sitting. But it's a very clunky way of going about business and would make them look weak. I appreciate that he IS weak, but that's by the by.

How often does the pm need to present something to the Queen?

It does not need to be continuous but this was the first thing presented to the parliment from Boris. Hey I would happily go for a single vote getting passed for a particular pm. So his first action would be a vote to confirm himself and then he goes to the Queen. Then he is grand till someone starts calling no confidence votes against him.

However in this case Boris knew he had people in open revolt (Hammond) and a wafer thin majority.

quokula wrote: »

it's a bit over the top to treat Soames and the other rebels as some kind of heroes - they were complicit in the years of undercutting of public services and migrant blaming that led to the Brexit vote, they mostly sat on their hands while May drew the extreme red lines at the beginning of the negotiations which have now become the baseline, and they're only now finally saying enough is enough at the last moment.

Soames is a particularly nasty POS:

Soames was chairman of the private security contractor Aegis Defence Services which was bought in 2015 by GardaWorld, for whom he now acts as a member of the International Advisory Board. Aegis had a series of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to provide guards to protect US military bases in Iraq from 2004 onwards. From 2011, the company broadened its recruitment to take in African countries, having previously employed people from the UK, the US and Nepal.

Contract documents say that the soldiers from Sierra Leone were paid $16 (£11) a day. A documentary, The Child Soldier’s New Job, broadcast in Denmark, alleges that the estimated 2,500 Sierra Leonean personnel who were recruited by Aegis and other private security companies to work in Iraq included former child soldiers.

Employing former child soldiers to do your dirty work in Iraq for $16 a day? Yeah - he's a real hero alright.

prawnsambo wrote: »

At least once a year. And afaik, there are weekly meetings. And then every time there's a law passed. Quite frequently actually. This is not the first time the PM did not have a clear majority, nor the first time they didn't have the full support of their party for some legislative or other decisive matter. Tony Blair had to rely on Tory support for the Iraq war as he had 139 Labour MPs vote against it.

I more meant meetings where the PM needs to claim parliamentary support without a vote having been held in parliament (like Boris did). Weekly meetings don't have this. Nor do laws that have been passed as they have had a vote generally.

I mean Blair passed bills with respect to the Iraq war (thanks to the Tory's) so he had parliamentary support on it. So it isn't the same.

Had Boris passed a bill for him shutting down parliament with labour support I would not have an issue. I don't need a clear majority, just pass a vote saying the parliament supports him, whatever parties are required to get it across the line.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Severe hard Brexit could reignite sectarian violence in Ireland, ratings agency says
DBRS suggests prolonged period of disruption could lead to UK breakup


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/severe-hard-brexit-could-reignite-sectarian-violence-in-ireland-ratings-agency-says-1.4007451

No fvcking ****...... its not like this wasn't massively telegraphed prior to the referendum or for the entirety of the last 3 years but of course thats all project fear, these fvcking people.......

Looks like LB won't facilitate a GE until after Oct 19th (Starmer). This would force Johnson to go to the EU Summit and request the Ext.
From LK BBC, so carries a health warning.

trellheim wrote: »

Question.

If Vote of No Confidence passed there is a provision in FTPA for it to be brought back to a vote within 14 days ; possibly resulting in a change to a Labour Govt without a GE.

Has anyone advised on this ?

The actual stipulation is a vote of confidence within 14 days. I think that's read to be a VoC for ANY possible PM and government as well as the current one. But the problem is that the 14 days lands in the middle of the prorogation and (I think) it's suspended until after the prorogation ends. But I stand to be corrected on this. But the 'within' clause implies that this can happen before prorogation.

Does anybody know what time, there or thereabouts, the vote on the no deal amendment will be tonight?

prawnsambo wrote: »

None of what happened last night equates to a VoNC, and won't until one is actually held. How many times was May defeated in parliament and yet went on to win VoNCs? Yes he removed the whip from 21 MPs last night, but that doesn't actually mean that they'd automatically vote against him in a VoNC. You seem to be applying hindsight to his position when he went to see the Queen. Even if he thought he might have a few rebels from it, at that point, he was the PM and nobody was saying that they wouldn't continue to support him in that position. It's quite different now and he's likely to lose a VoNC, but he's still PM until that happens and even until a new PM is chosen with or without an election.

Sure he might have won but he definitely was unsure of that at the time since everyone else would have been. I mean I think it would be a better system if the pm had to show support. This could have been the vote for the laws the Queen is about to sign or a vonc if it is extraordinary business. Heck maybe even just start off by voting in the pm like in Ireland. Then he goes to the Queen with evidence of support and it can be assumed till he loses a vonc (that someone else has to call) to have the support.

I am aware that last night was not a VoNC. Maybe he would have won one a week ago. He didn't know that and it seems like it would easy fix by doing it like the vast majority of parliments around the world.

Here we have a ridiculous situation with someone suspending parliament without the parliments even sitting to be able to show or not show support.

Yes it is partially hindsight but a bit of foresight in making the system could avoid situations like this. Certainly he might have still won but then parliment can't say they didn't support him in his prorogue. Or he loses and we avoid the situation.

No Deal odds out to 9/4 from evens last week.