nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Forty Seven

VinLieger wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

No. It cannot.

Yes it can, its literally a basic part of parliamentary procedure, just because the government looses its majority doesn't mean an election must be called, if the opposition can gather a majority of votes a new PM and Government can be installed.

Not without defending that position likely with the army they cannot. The procedure and the norm is a voc.

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

Not without defending that position likely with the army they cannot. The procedure and the norm is a voc.

LOL you are absolutely clueless, they have 14 days after a VOC to elect a new PM

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

Have labor not offered that interim single purpose government?

SFAIK they have. I was responding to Woohoo's suggestion to install a new government which would not just secure a Brexit extension but would also negotiate a revised deal and conduct a referendum on it. There isn't a sufficient inter-party consensus for that programme (Lib Dem policy is to revoke, for example) and, even if there were, as it would take many months to do all that the programme for government would also have to have a coherent position and cross-party support on other major issues that might require attention in the meantime (like whether to back US action against Iraq, for example).

I don't think a shared rejection of no-deal Brexit is a sufficient basis for the government that Woohoo suggests.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Responsible leadership would be to dial this stuff down and try to get a degree of cooperation going. Maybe even consider a national unity government. Instead the UK parties are ramping up the divisiveness.

To be specific, the Boris/ERG wing of the Tories are ramping up the divisiveness. Everyone else in the House last night up to the Speaker was practically begging Johnson to dial it down, and he then threw Jo Cox in their face.

Forty Seven

VinLieger wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Not without defending that position likely with the army they cannot. The procedure and the norm is a voc.

LOL you are absolutely clueless, they have 14 days after a VOC to elect a new PM

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

woejus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To be specific, the Boris/ERG wing of the Tories are ramping up the divisiveness. Everyone else in the House last night up to the Speaker was practically begging Johnson to dial it down, and he then threw Jo Cox in their face.

I wonder will an MP take this back to Boris and use parliamentary privilege to refer to him as "the alleged wifebeater Boris" or "domestic violence enthusiast Boris".

I understand the "surrender act" BS is pure Dominic Cummings stuff, but it can be easily weaponised against Boris.

Really his time to shine was a position like Lord Mayor, but this actual responsibility lark with nowhere to pass the buck to is not suiting him at all.

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/08/28/what-happens-after-a-vote-of-no-confidence-in-the-pm-a-route-map/

Forty Seven

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Responsible leadership would be to dial this stuff down and try to get a degree of cooperation going. Maybe even consider a national unity government. Instead the UK parties are ramping up the divisiveness.

To be specific, the Boris/ERG wing of the Tories are ramping up the divisiveness. Everyone else in the House last night up to the Speaker was practically begging Johnson to dial it down, and he then threw Jo Cox in their face.

Who brought up Jo Cox? It wasn't Boris using her name to make a point. He merely answered the point.

Strazdas

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who brought up Jo Cox? It wasn't Boris using her name to make a point. He merely answered the point.

The female MP who did was a friend of Jo Cox's and from the same area I think. She was perfectly entitled to raise the point with Johnson.

prawnsambo

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

You are absolutely wrong here. A Queen's speech opens a new session of parliament. A new PM elected by the current parliament is not a new session of parliament and the new PM just goes to the queen and tells her that he can form a government. Job done.

And none of that requires an election.

newport2

Last night, speaking about today, "Jacob Rees-Mogg said he would be making an “exciting announcement” in the Commons."

Waffle about nothing or something significant?

Forty Seven

woejus wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To be specific, the Boris/ERG wing of the Tories are ramping up the divisiveness. Everyone else in the House last night up to the Speaker was practically begging Johnson to dial it down, and he then threw Jo Cox in their face.

I wonder will an MP take this back to Boris and use parliamentary privilege to refer to him as "the alleged wifebeater Boris" or "domestic violence enthusiast Boris".

I understand the "surrender act" BS is pure Dominic Cummings stuff, but it can be easily weaponised against Boris.

Really his time to shine was a position like Lord Mayor, but this actual responsibility lark with nowhere to pass the buck to is not suiting him at all.

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/08/28/what-happens-after-a-vote-of-no-confidence-in-the-pm-a-route-map/

That's some desperate ifs and butting nonsense right there.

Peregrinus

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

No, you can have a change of PM without an election; that has just happened, in fact. And, equally, you can have a Queen's Speech without an election. (But in any event you don't have to have a Queen's Speech just because the PM has changed.)

Constitutionally, if the PM falls or resigns, and the parliamentary numbers make possible for him or her to be replaced by a PM from another party with no election, there is no objection, and it has happened in the past. It's just that on the current seat breakdown in the Commons it's not really feasible.

Forty Seven

Strazdas wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who brought up Jo Cox? It wasn't Boris using her name to make a point. He merely answered the point.

The female MP who did was a friend of Jo Cox's and from the same area I think. She was perfectly entitled to raise the point with Johnson.

And he was perfectly entitled to respond to it.

Zubeneschamali

JeffKenna wrote: »

Party before country with the opposition parties I'm afraid. They want to force Boris into asking for an extension thus destroying his credibility with the electorate.

I think it is now clear that humiliating Johnson is not only in the opposition parties interests, it is in the country's interest. After Johnson is gone, there will be a Tory PM again one day, and Johnson's fate should be a horrible lesson for them: shortest term as PM in history, most defeats, fewest wins, censure, you name it.

Peregrinus

Forty Seven wrote: »

And he was perfectly entitled to respond to it.

He was supposed to respond to it. It's the utterly appalling disgraceful shameful response that he chose to give that is causing him problems.

Forty Seven

prawnsambo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

You are absolutely wrong here. A Queen's speech opens a new session of parliament. A new PM elected by the current parliament is not a new session of parliament and the new PM just goes to the queen and tells her that he can form a government. Job done.

And none of that requires an election.

But there is not one person who could get enough votes to be elected pm outside of boris. Nor could any opposition form a government. A coalition? Good luck bringing that shower together. Especially now Labour have gone full open borders socialist.

Forty Seven

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

Party before country with the opposition parties I'm afraid. They want to force Boris into asking for an extension thus destroying his credibility with the electorate.

I think it is now clear that humiliating Johnson is not only in the opposition parties interests, it is in the countries interest. After Johnson is gone, there will be a Tory PM again one day, and Johnson's fate should be a horrible lesson for them: shortest term as PM in history, most defeats, fewest wins, censure, you name it.

So the opposition is reduced to 'attacking the poster, not the post'.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it is now clear that humiliating Johnson is not only in the opposition parties interests, it is in the country's interest. After Johnson is gone, there will be a Tory PM again one day, and Johnson's fate should be a horrible lesson for them: shortest term as PM in history, most defeats, fewest wins, censure, you name it.

Boris is lame duck at the minute...as lame as any PM I remember. The unfortunate thing is the opposition is as lame as I ever remember it to have been too.

lawred2

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

That's wrong.

Forty Seven

Peregrinus wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

And he was perfectly entitled to respond to it.

He was supposed to respond to it. It's the utterly appalling disgraceful shameful response that he chose to give that is causing him problems.

What was appalling about it? He said the best thing would be to finish brexit. What's appalling about that? He has always had the same position. Is he supposed to change it because someone attempts to tie a name painted in emotion onto it?

Peregrinus

Forty Seven wrote: »

So the opposition is reduced to 'attacking the poster, not the post'.

No, that's not what Zub is saying. The point about humiliating Johnson is not to attack Johnson, but to drive home the lesson that Johnson's behaviour leads inexorably to failure and ignominy, so that people who aren't Johnson will understand that if they, too, behave like this, a similar destiny awaits. It's the behaviour that's the target here, not the person.

[Deleted User]

Fourtyseven, i find it crazy that anyway can defend Johnson's performance last night, especially at the disrespect shown to Jo Cox's memory.

She was an ardent remainder slayed by an English right wing thug. To say the best way to honour her is to get Brexit done is utterly appalling.

Do you support Johnson's comments from last night?

lawred2

Forty Seven wrote: »

And he was perfectly entitled to respond to it.

Sure was but in typical Johnson fashion he either inadvertently or deliberately did so in the most crass stomach churning manner.

Jo Cox wanted to remain in the European Union. And was an avid campaigner for it. So much so that one nationalist loon took her life. "Honouring" her memory is not doing the exact thing that she campaigned publicly against.

He's a sociopath.

FrancieBrady

Johnson's goal was to defend by trying to rile everybody yesterday, in the hope of sparking a VoNC or an election, it is all he has left. He has shown before he doesn't care how he does that, he respects nothing.

woohoo!!!

Italy recently changed up their government and they've a long history of divisions. If Westminster is prepared to set aside party interests, put the country first, then the current parliament can put in place a temporary government and PM, specifically to steer a more reasonable WA and avoid crash out. Then a GE with party manifestos clearly setting out their stall.

Zubeneschamali

Forty Seven wrote: »

But there is not one person who could get enough votes to be elected pm outside of boris.

But Johnson's behaviour is so utterly appalling that he may unite everyone else in Parliament against him. Indeed, he seems to be trying to unite them.

It may be the only thing he is successful at in his term as PM. Everyone else agrees to elect, say father of the house Ken Clarke as an interim PM just to be rid of Johnson, with a brief to ask for an extension and then call an election.

Peregrinus

Forty Seven wrote: »

What was appalling about it? He said the best thing would be to finish brexit. What's appalling about that? He has always had the same position. Is he supposed to change it because someone attempts to tie a name painted in emotion onto it?

"All this talk of death threats is humbug; just do as I say and you won't receive death threats any more." is the gist of what he said. Going on to claim that "the best way to honor the memory of Jo Cox would be to get Brexit done" is just the cherry of personal vitriol on top of the sundae of fascism.

SeaBreezes

Meanwhile back in the real world and saner politics our own Taoiseach is out there making friends a drumming up business. I suppose it's no co-incidence it coincided with Boris's visit to the US..

https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-jimmy-fallon-4825376-Sep2019/

Forty Seven

Peregrinus wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

So the opposition is reduced to 'attacking the poster, not the post'.

No, that's not what Zub is saying. The point about humiliating Johnson is not to attack Johnson, but to drive home the lesson that Johnson's behaviour leads inexorably to failure and ignominy, so that people who aren't Johnson will understand that if they, too, behave like this, a similar destiny awaits. It's the behaviour that's the target here, not the person.

I can't recall a prime minister who's career did not ultimately end in failure. That's the job. It's not for life, you push your policies and hope they stick.

Fionn1952

Forty Seven wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

You are absolutely wrong here. A Queen's speech opens a new session of parliament. A new PM elected by the current parliament is not a new session of parliament and the new PM just goes to the queen and tells her that he can form a government. Job done.

And none of that requires an election.

But there is not one person who could get enough votes to be elected pm outside of boris. Nor could any opposition form a government. A coalition? Good luck bringing that shower together. Especially now Labour have gone full open borders socialist.

You have to be taking the proverbial?!

The goalposts have shifted from, 'it would require army intervention to install a new PM without an election' to 'well they'd require a Queen's Speech' over to, 'well the opposition wouldn't be able to agree on a PM'.

Could you not just acknowledge you were mistaken about the parliamentary procedure which follows a VONC, and move on?

You're entitled to be anti-EU, but at least get a basic grasp of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which you think is being diluted by the EU.

Having a VONC and installing a new PM isn't a coup, it isn't unusual, it's one of the basic principles behind British parliamentary politics.