BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 04:59 AM

I bit of a ramble coming up, I am afraid, as I try to join several threads together, leading to a concern I have about any further referendum or general election.

One of the speakers at yesterday's "Defend Democracy" meeting said both her parents were German and they left in the summer of 1939. She said she often wonders what the ordinary German thought at that time, but with the current plans to prorogue she thinks she understands now what her parents felt.

I strongly suspect she is mistaken about what most people thought, though. My daughter was working with someone yesterday and so said in passing that she was unable to be at the meeting and the organisers rarely consider people who have to work on Saturdays. That led to a conversation in which it turned out this colleague did not know that Parliament was being prorogued at all, or what that meant. And I imagine that was true in Germany in 1939 as well. A lot of people they would simply have said they were not interested in all that political stuff.

Which brings us to the next election and/or referendum. A lot of Remainers say at least now people will know what they are voting for: it has been made clear in a way it wasn't last time. I think that is wrong, because it does not recognise that the number people really interested - on either side - is relatively small.   The bulk of people have not been following it and perhaps their greatest wish is that it is over somehow. Without a doubt, 'no-deal' sounds like the way to achieve that, even though anyone who has paid any attention knows it is merely the first step of an incredibly long walk.

So I think there is a very good chance Remainers make some critical errors in the next step: far too much on economics and far to little on emotional engagement. Far too glib an assumption that 'people will know what is in store' this time. And far too willing to assume gentlemanly behaviour from their opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 05:17 AM

A confidential file obtained by The Sunday Times from the NHS reveals there is a list of essential medicines that will become immediately unobtainable when Britain leaves the EU
They include treatments for schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, epilepsy, and chronic pain
Despite having claimed that last week's 'Yellowhammer' document was "out of date", the government have responded that they are "doing their best to ascertain there are no shortages" - aka "we have done **** all"
They are not even singing from their own hymn sheet

I hope you are wrong about the remainers Mac - it must be very difficult to concentrate on emotions when the opposition to this fiasco includes both remainers and leavers - very mixed emotions already
I was staggered at the number of leavers who were interviewed on the demonstrations yesterday - all marching under the same banner.
It seems Johnson has shot himself in both feet and has now abandoned the merits of leaving appealing to the Tory rebels with "the alternative to me is Corbyn chaos" - the age-old "back me or you'll be out of a job" ploy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 06:05 AM

The sooner a general election the better. All the traitors will have to be thrown out of the Tory party and Labour MPs will have to make very clear what side they are batting for, and all the Libdem supporters will have to decide what they are all about. I suspect many of them were but protest voters. The big unknown is who will vote for the brexit party?
where will they stand?
Do Farage and Boris have a pact?
Who really supports Corbyn?
How many remainers respect the democratic will of the majority and will vote for Brexit?

No polls can come close to predicting with any accuracy until the roadmap is clear.
Parliament may control the legislative but government controls the executive and reports ultimately to the Queen and the people.
An unelected rabble trying to pass binding legislation is an affront to democracy because they have no accountability.
They say no taxation without representation,
Likewise no legislation without representation.
There can be but one legally constituted government at any one time, the remoaner's way leads to anarchy and strife, simply because they refuse to accept the will of the people.
None of your fatuous arguments can destroy that self evident truth.
You backed the wrong horse, hence your long faces!
Democracy demands the majority vote dictates outcomes, and the people made their wishes very clear.
Your arguments about people changing their mind have no substance.
Your claim people have died and hence the outcome has changed is risible.
Your threat to withhold flue jabs for brexiteers is simply spiteful and pathetic.
Your childish arguments over the referendum statistics simply demonstrate the vacuity of your arguments, well exemplified by your constant attempts to control the narrative by trying to ban contributors, accuse them of trolling and of course the never endingstrings of insults.

In thousands of posts you have changed NOTHING, apart from stalling the departure for three years, frustrate any meaningful dialogue with the EU and created endless uncertainty for business and cost the country billions.
The sooner you rabble raising remoaners are routed, the better!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 06:35 AM

A MESSAGE ON BEHALF OF BREXIT
A Patriot

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 08:59 AM

So now Gove is refusing to rule out the possibility that the government will ignore any new law legitimately passed to prevent no-deal. I think I'll start calling it a regime, not a government.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 09:06 AM

I just watched "The Andrew Marr Show" where, when asked if they would abide a law passed by both houses and given royal assent, his response was "let's see what the law says."

It would be the law, whatever it said. Declaring you may not abide by it is definitely coup territory, whatever your view on the prorogation.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 09:16 AM

" "let's see what the law says." "
That sent a chill up my spine too
Isn't it amazing how our glorious leader's nodding dogs who scream "traitor" the loudest are those who are fully in support of this dangerous extremism ?
One wonders "traitors to what" exactly, it certainly has little to do with democracy as I understand it
Whare the hell are Stan(ron) and Ollie when you need them ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Mossback
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 10:08 AM

Steve, surely that's seriously fucked up - how can they ignore an act of parliament?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 10:20 AM

"how can they ignore an act of parliament?"
Watch this space
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 10:46 AM

So now Gove is refusing to rule out the possibility that the government will ignore any new law legitimately passed to prevent no-deal. I think I'll start calling it a regime, not a government.

Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature (either directly, or through an official acting on the monarch's behalf). In some jurisdictions, royal assent is equivalent to promulgation, while in others that is a separate step. Under a modern constitutional monarchy royal assent is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still, in theory, permit the monarch to withhold assent to laws.

the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to veto a law by withholding royal assent was once exercised often by European monarchs, such an occurrence has been very rare since the eighteenth century.

Royal assent is the final step required for a parliamentary bill to become law. Once a bill is presented to the sovereign or the sovereign's representative, he or she has the following formal options:

    the sovereign may grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament.
    the sovereign may delay the bill's assent through the use of his or her reserve powers, thereby vetoing the bill.[2]
    the sovereign may refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers

An unelected rabble trying to force legislation through with the connivance of a clearly partisan speaker overlook one vital factor.
Without accountability there is no legitimacy. The government in power does not have to offer bills for Royal assent when they no control over the content.
The legitimate way to rebel is through a vote of no confidence thereby triggering aGeneral Election.
Compo the compost king knows he would be thrashed into oblivion should the election arise. Hence he will even frustrate that course of action.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 10:58 AM

"An unelected rabble"
Another one for Max's list
It's certainly stacking upi nicely
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 10:58 AM

Just to point out the obvious, Gove was saying they might not abide by the law EVEN IF HAD ROYAL ASSENT.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 11:10 AM

Whilst I regard Gove as a snivelling Tory git (just my measured opinion, of course), I'm amazed at his complete loss of sure-footedness here. I'd bet that he'll be on telly a fair bit in the next couple of days wriggling and squirming over what he's said.

(And just a tiny whisper: let's be careful who we choose to respond to. The current efforts are working a treat...)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 11:17 AM

I'd bet that he'll be on telly a fair bit in the next couple of days wriggling and squirming over what he's said.

Perhaps. Or he might be Cummingsed. Only into solitary, though. Even Cummings would think twice before advising Johnson to sack him.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 11:28 AM

"(And just a tiny whisper: let's be careful who we choose to respond to. The current efforts are working a treat...)
Just wool-gathering to myself Steve - he'd doing quite well displaying the level of his own erudition without our help.
Thanks for the reminder
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:04 PM

I would have thought ignoring a law of Parliament would be contempt of Parliament, which has punishments that could extent to imprisonment, even for an MP. Nothing seems to exclude that MP being a PM that I have read so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:21 PM

"would have thought ignoring a law of Parliament"
Me too, but is's apparently not how populist democracy works
I could have sworn that Parliament voted overwhelmingly way back not to crash out of Europe without a deal
YUP - THERE YOU GO
Yet here we are facing a no-deal Brexit
Brexit has left a long and growing trail of casualties and fatalities - Parliamentary Democracy seems to be among them
Where lie the traitors in this sorry saga ?
Personally, I'm pinning my hopes on the forthcoming legal challenges, but we all know that those who can pay the most get the most ustice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:28 PM

At the risk of being a bit Nigelly, the vote saying Parliament did not want a no-deal was not a law. It was an expression of a wish, but it did not have legal standing. But what we would be talking about in a law passed next week - if indeed it was - would be framed as a law, and so subject to the contempt procedures if, for example, the Government refused to offer it for royal assent.

And I didn't get that from Wikipedia!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:29 PM

I would have thought ignoring a law of Parliament would be contempt of Parliament, which has punishments that could extent to imprisonment, even for an MP. Nothing seems to exclude that MP being a PM that I have read so far.

I wonder why a vote of no confidence is not called?

Too many MPs scared to put their money where their mouth is? I am sure the game plan is to force a General Election, despite the fixed term Parliament Act.

Placing the government in the invidious position of being forced to submit legislation for Royal Assent that they are vehemently opposed to raises all sorts of intriguing possibilities about circumventing the Opposition and Fixed term Parliament Act.
I am sure it has all been carefully choreographed and game planned to box steptoe senior into an election he does not want, cannot win and destroy Labour for generations.

Bring it on I say. All those Brexit party elective MPs stand ready.
The only problem is how to best use Widdecombe? Assuming we have left before the election she would make a stunning speaker to replace the poisonous dwarf.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:35 PM

If the government ignores the law, then the entire UK MUST also be exempt form all UK laws and the prisons must release every prisoner anything else is hypocrisy. The UK is a cesspit and everyone who voted Tory has made it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:43 PM

I have no difficulty imagine a party political broadcast in say December:

Aerial shot: Lorry queues at Dover

Cut to Raab: I did not appreciate the importance of Dover

Cut to: reports of medical shortages

Cut to Boris - it's just a bump in the road.

Cut to: Depleted shelves in a supermarket

Cut to: Gove - its just a bump in the road

Cut to: Report of Some Major Factory shutting

Cut to: Boris - a bump in the road.


=====
Not all of those scenes may happen, but I feel confident an equivalent can be found. If I were Labour and only concerned with maximising my electoral chances, I would not push for a vote of no confidence until late November or December. Keep all the focus on legislative means to prevent no deal at this stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 12:54 PM

I agree entirely with SBP
I think that, if anything, this long-running farce has dropped all pretence of a democracy that gets in the way of the personal interests of the great and the good in our society
The veneer seems to have rubbed so thin as to be non-existent
Any politician (or businessman, for that matter) who can claim to be helping Britain to "stand on her own two feet" and then miss off and put his money into Singapore or European Ireland have to be mentally deficient (or think we are) to believe they will be taken seriously (as shown by those who defend it here)
This is the level of contempt in which we are regarded
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 01:09 PM

Irish news headlines lead with "British Minister refuses to say whether or not he and his boss are prepared to abide by Parliamentary decisions - I think the "we'll see what they are - we're not buying a pig-in--a-poke" curled the newsreader up somewhat
Someone locally referred to Brexit as "Ireland's revenge for Bernard Manning" the other day - went into my repertoire immediately
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 01:25 PM

Just to point out the obvious, Gove was saying they might not abide by the law EVEN IF HAD ROYAL ASSENT.

At the risk of being a pedant the word legislation was used by Gove. It is not law until passed by both houses and given Royal Assent

"Following the Royal Assent, the Act of Parliament will usually come into force at midnight of that date. However, there has been a growing trend for Acts of Parliament not to come into force immediately. Instead the Act itself either states the date when it will commence, or the Act passes responsibility to the appropriate minister to fix the date when the Act will come into force. In the latter case the minister will bring the Act into force by issuing a commencement order."

Legislation is not law until given royal assent. You have the cart before the horse- This is most remiss of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 02:23 PM

"At the risk of being a bit Nigelly..."

The word you're looking for is "Nigelliferous." Hope you don't mind the nitpicking. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 02:23 PM

Just a note, an "unelected rabble" are in fact elected Member of Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 02:48 PM

If you want to talk about unelected rabble (I'd rather not), well there's our unelected prime minister in charge of a minority government (unelected by the electorate) which is being run behind the scenes by an unelected bully of a special adviser in Number Ten. This unelected bunch are so arrogant that they believe they have some sort of "mandate." Let's hope they get put right this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 03:08 PM

The most outrageous of the unelected rabble is Dominic Cummings - a tee-shirt wearing thug with the power to dismiss the staff of elected ministers
Fuckibg outraueous
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 04:45 PM

The most outrageous of the unelected rabble is Dominic Cummings - a tee-shirt wearing thug with the power to dismiss the staff of elected ministers
Fuckibg outraueous

As a point of accuracy I need to point out the "unelected rabble" you refer to is the legally constituted government. A contradiction in terms, doncha think?

Dominic Cummings is a spad. That means he is an appointee, not elected.
He is the 'mad eye Moody' of the Tories, an 'auror' teaching defense against the dark arts of the coup plotting rabble hell bent on defying the sovereignty of the people.

A very useful laddie to have onside judging by the resultant squealing coming from the losers.

(When the swearing and insults start you know they have lost the argument and incoherent rage takes over.) Tickety tock. time and tide waits for no man!

Now! What about that no confidence vote? Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
Verily I say to you, a true popcorn moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 07:25 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 02:23 PM

"At the risk of being a bit Nigelly..."

The word you're looking for is "Nigelliferous." Hope you don't mind the nitpicking. :-)


As opposed to "Steve Shaw inventions"

I have had very little input into this debate recently. But Steve Shaw talks a load of crap, and expects everyone to accept his prognostications.

He is even willing to attack my comments, with no explanation why, just to make a general comment. Moderators, please take note!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 08:06 PM

Ah, good to see you, Nigel. Not so good that you ignore the fact that, along with several other contributors with whom you disagree, I try to argue the substance of the issue. A hint, Nigel: you are quick to criticise, but you will be ultimately be judged by those who you choose NOT to criticise, and there's one egregious example here about whom you are oddly silent......

That's how it is round here. Raggy and I don't agree about our approach to poor Iains. Jim and I disagree about referendums, and I'm sure Jim won't mind if I tell you that he's even suggested that we start a "referendum" thread so that he and I can scrap. It might happen if I can muster the energy. BWM has told me to eff off on a number of occasions and pfr and I commonly adopt different and incompatible perspectives. But you, as a right-winger, attempt to single out us lefties, one at a time, for your nitpicking negative attacks. We call that tribalism, Nigel. I know that Liverpool FC is the greatest team on earth, always was, always will be, and that Man U stink. I'm a unashamed footie tribalist. But on the matter of brexit my only focus is on what's best for this country. I don't expect anyone to agree about my take. But I put my case, and have done over many posts. It takes effort. You should try that approach yourself some time. We've seen very little of it from you so far. The nitpicking thing with you can look like a joke. But it's your main modus operandi, unfortunately. Perhaps you use it as compensation for the fact that you can't actually debate. Now there's a challenge for you. Prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 08:10 PM

We can handle him, SPB. We've been doing really well at handling forum nuisances this last couple of weeks. Keep your cool, don't react, and just watch as they get ever more shrill and neurotic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 19 - 08:28 PM

We've been trying hard to blank you-know-who, SPB, and it's working. Worth remembering that only a handful of people ever read his posts. And I for one am not one of them any more. Let's keep the thread going!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 01:08 AM

Not only should everyone not speak to YKW, neither should they speak about him. Any reference to him can be construed by both YKW, and the powers that be, as ‘provocation’ and can be used to justify his school-playground behaviour.

Blank him completely. That is the only way to demonstrate who the real Problem Poster is - otherwise, everyone who participates becomes a ‘bastard’ in the eyes of ‘Them Upstairs’.

You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 02:11 AM

And some news of yet more Proroguing proposals...any views, Steve? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 03:11 AM

Nigel has said he has deliberately avoided this discussion - I think if I was in his position and defending the events he needs too defend,, I might have decided to do the same
I see little point in antagonising him now he has returned - we need a far more intelligent input from Brexit supporters thna we have had so far, God knows
Talking about other posters gets threads closed - back to our muttons

Haven't been out for the paper, are the tanks rolling up Whitehall yet !!
Any minute now; Johnson's only got till tomorrow
SPAD = 'Secretly Promoted and Authorised Doorkeeper' from his behaviour and that of those who allow him to act as the thug Cummings obviously is - Germany's 'New Order' was riddled with them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 03:20 AM

Irish border after Brexit – all ideas are beset by issues says secret paper


A report summarising the findings of the government’s official “alternative arrangements” working groups concluded that there are issues with all the scenarios put forward to try to replace the backstop arrangement. There are also specific concerns over whether any technological solution could be delivered to monitor cross-border trade.
Critics said the paper, seen by the Guardian, should “ring alarm bells” across government over how likely it is that alternative arrangements to the backstop will be found.
The dossier marked “official-sensitive” prepared for the EU Exit Negotiations Board is dated 28 August. It details how the findings of all advisory groups informing the government on the Northern Irish border are being kept deliberately under wraps to try to avoid hampering Britain’s intended renegotiation of the backstop agreed to by Theresa May.


I don't think that will come as a surprise to anyone who bothered to read the 272 page report and subject it to any kind of critique.

I have said elsewhere - not necessarily in these threads - that *every* border by definition does two things

a) It permits something which meets certain rules to pass.
b) It prevents things that don't meet those rules from passing.

This is basic stuff, surely. Yet the whole 272 page report concentrates of the first of these - trusted trader schemes, anyone - and virtually ignores the second. Indeed at one point it admits the second may get worse than it is now, but offers the opinion it won't.

Again basic stuff: opinions are not mechanisms.

In any case, the essence of the reasons why they think it won't rely on things that the US paper on thier trading objectives wants removed as part of any trade deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 03:45 AM

Love the last link, BWM. Sums up what is happening perfectly :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 03:49 AM

Terrible things facts. By every metric remainers lost the referendum.
It only needed a one vote majority for the valiant brexiteers to win. They gained in excess of a million.
    The only reason the rebels in Parliament are acting the way they are is because they know they have no mandate from the people. It is the people who have sovereignty and elect MPs to represent them.
    That these rebels do not go to the people to firmly establish their mandate is very telling. They know they will not only lose,but lose their cosy sinecures as well. That tells one all that is needed about the "calibre" of these destroyers of democracy.
   Both they and the partisan speaker are on the brink of replacement.
Time to suspend him while those bullying allegations are investigated doncha think?
There are many ways of skinning a cat.

A question for the screeching minority.

WHY are you scared to obtain a fresh mandate from the people by way of a no confidence vote and General Election?
I will answer it for you. It is because you losers would resoundingly lose again and again ahd again.Remember Farage and his Brexit party cleaned up in the EU elections. He has had no chance to field his popular party in the UK yet, and you are scared of him!(Cue drivelling abuse)
Go on make my day. PROVE ME WRONG!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 04:17 AM

Amusing myself by writing a draft speech for Corbyn if Boris calls for a vote of no confidence. This is what I would say. Of course, he may take a different tack entirely.

Mr Speaker:
Labour has been clear that it will do everything it can to prevent a no-deal. We have also been clear that we will call for a vote of no confidence at a time of our choosing.

The Prime Minister has been equally clear that he would pick the date of a general election after October 31st which would ensure we have left by that date. As Parliament would not be sitting, that would be a no-deal exit, because we would be unable to vote for any other deal. Because we are committed to preventing no-deal, we cannot agree to that. For that reason, we will call for a vote of no confidence at a time of our choosing, but we will not support one today.

Some will argue that by not declaring no confidence today we will make a no deal more likely. I would answer that any responsibility for a no deal lies with the Prime Minister - we will not absolve him of that. He has the authority to bring back a deal to this house and has declared many times he will do so. We give him that choice. The choice is also with him to recommend the House revokes Article 50: that option is always available to him to prevent a no deal if he wished to take it. We give him that choice. We have heard talk that he wants to run an election saying Parliament is preventing him from negotiating a deal: we choose not to prevent him negotiating.

Mr Speaker, I can confirm once again that Labour will call a Vote of No Confidence at a time of our choosing. Today is not that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 04:42 AM

I should have said that is my speech if we do not have a agreed GNU ready and waiting in the wings that we could deploy immediately. In that situation my speech would be different, but I don't think that is ready at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 04:54 AM

From a post of the 9th August:

"I am all for a second referendum,but subject to the same constraints others have argued for on this forum. It will not alter Brexit unless remainers achieve a majority greater than 65% of the vote."

From a post today:

"Terrible things facts. By every metric remainers lost the referendum.It only needed a one vote majority for the valiant brexiteers to win."

Compare and contrast!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 05:01 AM

Hitler gone viral
Johnson has threatened to withdraw the whip from all Tory MPs who vote against him and ban them from standing in future elections

Headlines in today's Times
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 05:10 AM

Sound good to me DMcG. As long as preventing a no deal doesn't include making a worse deal! I and many others have said from the start that this disaster is completely the fault of the Tories. They got us in it and they should shoulder the responsibility. The only possible benefit I see from brexit is the destruction of the Tory party. They have already tried to shift the blame elsewhere but, if Corbyn is considering what you suggest, the timing should be when they have dug themselves so far into the mire that they can never get out.

Of course getting a good deal with the EU or not leaving at all would be preferable but is that feasible at this stage? Unlike some Tories, who would prefer to see their own party in ruins to not leaving, I believe that those who really do value parliamentary democracy would be quite forgiving of anyone who could sort out this shambles to the benefit of the whole population.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 05:11 AM

Well, BWM, I think Jurgen is far too inclusive for that. And never forget that Bill Shankly (aka God) was an ardent socialist of the finest kind, and 'twas he who set the Liverpool ethos for ever more!   

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to refer to Fergie at Man U (or Manure as some Liverpool fans are apt to call them) as the Dominic Cummings of football. Fergie didn't exactly frogmarch his uppity types out of the club, but he was known to throw things around the dressing room in a rage, and he made some of the best footballers persona non grata. Ask Becks, he'd tell you! That's the Boris method, innit...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 05:21 AM

LOL Steve!

Although I played local league football until I was 30-ish, I’m not a great football fan nowadays. I’m more into cricket and Rugby (both the men’s game and Union!). But, if I had to declare allegiance to a club other than Leeds Utd., it would probably be Liverpool.

Anyway, back to our impending act of National Self-Harm...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 05:47 AM

From the Guardian website:

Here is a Press Association list of members of the cabinet who have defied the government whip this year - sustaining Philip Hammond’s claim that Boris Johnson is being “staggeringly hypocritical”.

Boris Johnson, prime minister: Voted against Theresa May’s Brexit deal in first two votes

Dominic Raab, foreign secretary: Voted against May’s Brexit deal in first two votes

Priti Patel, home secretary: Voted against May’s Brexit deal in all three votes

Grant Shapps, transport secretary: Voted against May’s Brexit deal in first two votes

Theresa Villiers, environment secretary: Voted against May’s Brexit deal in all three votes

Esther McVey, housing minister: Voted against May’s Brexit deal twice

Amber Rudd, work and pensions secretary: Abstained in vote on ruling out no-deal Brexit in all circumstances in March, despite government MPs being under orders to vote against

Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the Commons: Voted against May’s Brexit deal in first two votes

So what was OK in Tory ranks then isn't going to be OK now. Wow.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 06:08 AM

"So what was OK in Tory ranks then isn't going to be OK now. Wow."
Withdrawing the whip is bad enough but banning from standing as a candidate in future elections destroys any claim to democracy that the Tory Party have
Basically it means that the Mps are selected by the Prime Minister on the basis that they support what he wants
That is as 'indicated' a dictatorship as it gets
The mask is now off - Britain is heading for dictatorship status
Cummings will probably be given the job of creating an SS !!
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 06:15 AM

Sound good to me DMcG. As long as preventing a no deal doesn't include making a worse deal!

I think the only 'deal' option available is the withdrawal agreement unchanged, with something different in the political declaration. That is the position in my opinion whether it is Johnson or Corbyn negotiating. While it is definitely a great deal worse that the soft Brexit I thought might be negotiated (which would of course be in line with the referendum), it is still a lot better than no deal. And since the declaration is not legally binding, a new government could go in a different direction anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 02 Sep 19 - 07:09 AM

A simply spiffing gem from the source of truth GUIDO Fawkes!

Over the last couple of days, Government ministers have avoided answering whether they would allow the Queen to approve to any legislation passed by Parliament designed to prevent Brexit on the 31st. Naturally, Remainers have reacted with outrage…

Back in January a Policy Exchange paper by Sir Stephen Laws QC argued that the executive’s role in approving legislation is fundamental to the UK’s constitution, and passing laws without executive approval upsets the UK’s constitutional order.

Guido can now reveal there is extensive precedent of Governments asking the Queen to not sign legislation they don’t approve. Anti-Brexit spokesman Tony Blair himself used this power on a number of occasions to “quell politically embarrassing backbench rebellions”. Perhaps most notably to block a bill by Tam Dalyell in 1999 that aimed to give MPs a vote on military action against Saddam Hussein.

Going further back, Labour PM Harold Wilson used the Queen’s veto to kill off two “politically embarrassing bills” about peerages and Zimbabwean independence, in 1964 and 1969 respectively

Alastair Campbell has been reacting furiously to Gove’s refusal to commit the government to obeying any law parliament passes; when asked about Blair using the same tactic, he conveniently failed to recall the case…

I see plenty of Remainiac sails, but, alas alack NO WIND

The spads have obviously done all their homework and got gold stars for all their 'sums'.(Unlike the abbaccus)