Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

UK Politics: The Malice in the Chalice held by the Pfeffel with the Piffle is the Brexit that is true.

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

It'd take a bit to get to that stage.

Basically, here's the scenario where Boris goes to jail:

  • Act passes.
  • Boris ignores it.
  • Court injunction forces Boris to obey Act.
  • Boris ignores it.
  • Court finds Boris guilty of contempt of court.
  • The Court opts to sentence him to prison.

Bah, in your dreams - courts never send politicians to jail for contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

That’s my point! They might find them in contempt, but they won’t jail them.

Also, that was 26 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumours that the backstop is going to get a BoJo-style rebranding but effectively be left intact, allowing BoJo to take it to Parliament in the hopes of passing it with ERG support (suspect JRM and his cronies will be getting huge promises behind the scenes), plus some Labour and some of the disaffected 21, perhaps accompanied by agreement to return the whip to them.

This has just the right ring of desperation to it, but not sure it's going to work. The DUP will shoot it down, so BoJo is asking a lot of the hard Brexit-favouring crowd to support it. Plus it is effectively May's deal just slightly reheated in the microwave, so very dubious it will fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Rumours that the backstop is going to get a BoJo-style rebranding but effectively be left intact, allowing BoJo to take it to Parliament in the hopes of passing it with ERG support (suspect JRM and his cronies will be getting huge promises behind the scenes), plus some Labour and some of the disaffected 21, perhaps accompanied by agreement to return the whip to them.

This has just the right ring of desperation to it, but not sure it's going to work. The DUP will shoot it down, so BoJo is asking a lot of the hard Brexit-favouring crowd to support it. Plus it is effectively May's deal just slightly reheated in the microwave, so very dubious it will fly.

So it’s back to the NI-only backstop and an Irish Sea border - that could win over the ERG and given all the defections the DUP’s anger won’t be relevant. Can he get enough Labour votes for it though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 10:51 PM, Werthead said:

Although the utter destruction of the Conservative Party would be a net positive for the future of our country, the negative is that the removal of the moderate and sane Tories from the party will cause the rump to swerve further and harder to the right. We've already seen reports of Cummings suggesting that the party weaponise various social issues as part of a new election campaign, which given that there's quite a few LGBTQ Conservative supporters seems unwise, but is also straight out of the Trump/Bannon playbook.

Isn't Milo Yiannopolous (Sp?) one of your LGBTQ Conservatives? Seems like he'd be fine with whatever queer attacks it would take to keep conservatives in power. Though I guess not all LGBTQ Conservatives are such Uncle Toms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Isn't Milo Yiannopolous (Sp?) one of your LGBTQ Conservatives? Seems like he'd be fine with whatever queer attacks it would take to keep conservatives in power. Though I guess not all LGBTQ Conservatives are such Uncle Toms.

He isnt and never has been an MP, not sure what relevance he has to this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

He isnt and never has been an MP, not sure what relevance he has to this

Wert said LGBTQ Conservative supporters, nothing about him being an MP. Maybe he's not a Conservative, possibly more of a UKIPer / Brexit party guy?

So this is being mentioned as Boris' intention to comply with the extension law and achieve no extension at the same time: 

Quote

A plan under consideration would see Johnson sending a letter alongside the request to extend Article 50 setting out that the government does not want any delay after October 31, according to the report, Reuters said.

It is certainly true that the govt doesn't want an extension, but the Parliament does want an extension. I assume the EU is more likely to listen to the will of Parliament over the govt, but I guess that's not a given. It is separating govt from Parliament, and I assume it';s the UK govt who represents the UK in the EU council? Does the fact that the letter says the govt doesn't want an extension then pave the way for the govt to veto the request? Or is the letter itself the veto?

 

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yiannopolous is British, true, but is US-resident, primarily active in the US media, and has been both for many years. His relevance to the UK political scene is slight to the point that it honestly feels weird to bring him up in this thread, let alone class him as a prominent LGBTQ Tory supporter. 

The EU is well aware that Parliament wants an extension, but it must deal with the UK government, not the UK Parliament. But I don't know what the problem is here. The bill says we must ask for an extension only if Johnson can't pass a deal, and he and his government ministers keep telling us they're about to agree one, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I understand rightly that Johnson could have put forward some legislation so that he would only need a simple majority for an election, but due to the prorogation he now doesn’t have time for that?

 

If so, I imagine he feels pretty silly right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mormont said:

Yiannopolous is British, true, but is US-resident, primarily active in the US media, and has been both for many years. His relevance to the UK political scene is slight to the point that it honestly feels weird to bring him up in this thread, let alone class him as a prominent LGBTQ Tory supporter. 

True. You might as well say Aye Rand would be an adequate conduit to judge the social/political mores of women in the Soviet Union by virtue of having been born and lived her early years in Russia. 

Yiannoplish being popular over in among America’s far-right, means little given the fact the US’ on the political spectrum is farther to the right than the UK.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

So do I understand rightly that Johnson could have put forward some legislation so that he would only need a simple majority for an election, but due to the prorogation he now doesn’t have time for that?

 

If so, I imagine he feels pretty silly right now...

Such legislation would have to pass in both houses. And Johnson doesn't have a majority in the House of Commons to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bercow's gone then (Halloween or GE, whichever is sooner - AKA Halloween)

Apparently his announcement was treated by a standing ovation from all but rabid Tories.

Anyone know the odds on who'd succeed?
Assuming Halloween comes first, one of the ex-tories might be a decent option.
Speaker Stewart?
What are the norms and rules for the appointment? I've never paid much attention to speaker nom.s before.

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It is certainly true that the govt doesn't want an extension, but the Parliament does want an extension. I assume the EU is more likely to listen to the will of Parliament over the govt, but I guess that's not a given. It is separating govt from Parliament, and I assume it';s the UK govt who represents the UK in the EU council? Does the fact that the letter says the govt doesn't want an extension then pave the way for the govt to veto the request? Or is the letter itself the veto? 

No, check upthread. The UK can obviously reject the EU's extension offer, and usually that would be within the responsibility of the UK Goverment/the PM. However the Benn bill was/is very explicit about that. Johnson has to come back with the extension offer before parliament, who can then decide whether they accept the terms (which they will) or reject the proposed extension (why would they?). So by law Johnson can't just reject/veto the the extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Bercow's gone then (Halloween or GE, whichever is sooner - AKA Halloween)

Apparently his announcement was treated by a standing ovation from all but rabid Tories.

Anyone know the odds on who'd succeed?
Assuming Halloween comes first, one of the ex-tories might be a decent option.
Speaker Stewart?
What are the norms and rules for the appointment? I've never paid much attention to speaker nom.s before.

By tradition it rotates between the two major parties, so since Bercow was a Tory before becoming Speaker, that would mean the successor would come from Labour. However this tradition was broken recently in that both of Bercow's immediate predecessors were Labour.

Also, I think if you've ever been a Cabinet minister you're not supposed to run, but again that is a tradition and not a rule. The actual rules, taken from Wikipedia, are:

Quote

Under the new system, candidates must be nominated by at least twelve members, of whom at least three must be of a different party from the candidate. Each member may nominate no more than one candidate. The House then votes by secret ballot; an absolute majority (i.e. more than 50% of the votes cast) is required for victory. If no candidate wins a majority, then the individual with the fewest votes is eliminated, as are any other candidates who receive less than 5% of the votes cast. The House continues to vote, for several rounds if necessary, until one member receives the requisite majority. Then, the House votes on a formal motion to appoint the member in question to the Speakership. (In the unlikely event that this motion fails, the House must hold a fresh series of ballots on all of the nominees.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

So do I understand rightly that Johnson could have put forward some legislation so that he would only need a simple majority for an election, but due to the prorogation he now doesn’t have time for that?

 

If so, I imagine he feels pretty silly right now...

No because he doesn't have a simple majority for an election as the SNP have decided to back the Labour stance that the earliest an election should come is late November. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maltaran said:

By tradition it rotates between the two major parties, so since Bercow was a Tory before becoming Speaker, that would mean the successor would come from Labour. However this tradition was broken recently in that both of Bercow's immediate predecessors were Labour.

Also, I think if you've ever been a Cabinet minister you're not supposed to run, but again that is a tradition and not a rule. The actual rules, taken from Wikipedia, are:

 

Thank you - good knowledge.

 

So, have I got my head got my head around Corbyn's motion correctly? Are we really having a debate in parliament about whether MPs should obey the law of the land?
Surely I've misunderstood something. For the love of all the gods, surely things haven't got THAt bad - despite "dead in a ditch" rhetoric.

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×