Taking back control.
Literally
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Literally
The real shame is the with either of these, a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson would pass and an interim government would be put in place.
More like a hired thug put in place to do all Boris Johnson dirty work.
I agree with you on the first part... There probably is the votes to pass a vonc
I don't think there is a candidate people will coalesce around to command a majority .... It certainly won't be jezbollah and he's too stubborn to support anybody else... Boris stays in place for 2 weeks then calls an election for november?
Not sure that I agree with your last point. All of what has, is and will happen is part of a carefully thought out plan, which I regret to say is highly likely to succeed (the plan, not the outcome).
Yep. Similarly, you can bet that the Queen's advisers were sounded out well in advance of Johnson's meeting.
Maybe. But I am confident that the Liberals and those opposed to a no deal exit would have accepted anyone but Corbyn.
Hired goon?
Yup clarke / cooper as s proposed would be a goer I think... Well to everybody except Corbyn which potentially leads to a hard brexit which I suspect Corbyn does not really mind as he can then fight an election promising industry subsidies and mass renationalisations
Correct. They knew that getting the Queen to agree to the suspension of parliament had a small element of risk.
As we all know, it is not what you say that is important. It is what you don't say.
For any plan to succeed, the most important thing is the rigor of the risk assessment and the way risks are mitigated.
This has all the hallmarks of a well executed plan.
Nobody should be surprised - the last couple of Conservative governments haven't given a damn about legality.
I'm only asking, but wouldn't parliament need to repeal the Withdrawal Act to avoid Brexit now, I'm not sure how some sort of indicative vote could overrule that act?
I'm not too sure. The EU would have to agree to a further extension if Parliament votes for that. I still think there is legal dispute whether it's the PM or Parliament who can withdraw A50 and keep us in the EU?
Regardless, I'm sure Tuesday will be interesting. MPs are back at 2:30pm so expect fireworks by 2:31
I think it needs to go through the Lords to become legally binding. Pretty sure JRM ruled out governance by amendment.
Yeah, the lords, and there has to be two readings or something as it goes back and forth between the two houses. I get there could be an indicative vote, but not how that would cancel an existing act of parliament, the Withdrawal Act. And as Elvis says, it would be meaningless to the EU who would just declare us out on the agreed date. I'm only speculating, quite happy to find out I'm wrong.
Pmq's is going to be lively on Wednesday I think!I'm not too sure. The EU would have to agree to a further extension if Parliament votes for that. I still think there is legal dispute whether it's the PM or Parliament who can withdraw A50 and keep us in the EU?
Regardless, I'm sure Tuesday will be interesting. MPs are back at 2:30pm so expect fireworks by 2:31
Roy Stewart has said there's perhaps a dozen Tory MPs ready to vote against the government. Do we think any Labour MPs would abstain from such a vote? The Ian Lavery's are the ones that worry me.
I think in a confidence vote they would vote against Johnson... But in a vote to block no deal some would abstain or even vote with the government to support no deal... The really interesting vote would be seeing which labour MPs abstained or voted against Corbyn if he tried to show a majority of MP's supported him
Totally agree. BJ and his BrExit cronies have had months to plan every dimension.
They would have thought through every ‘Root and Branch’ available in terms of process and strategic choices. Hence Gove’s earlier statement of waiting for the ‘language of any future law’.
Further evidence here from an excerpt from Sunday Mail:
“Senior Tories have war-gamed how to react if Remain MPs pass laws forcing Mr Johnson to demand a Brexit extension. Under one scenario, he would duly ask for a delay beyond October 31 – but then use the UK's veto in the EU to kill his own request”
I don't think they will go that route
Remember the last extension was only granted to allow more time to pass the withdrawal agreement
If he asks for more time then there again has to be a reason ... All he has to do is request the extension based on negotiating a new deal with the backstop removed as he can then blame the EU for not going in to negotiations and the remoaner parliament for blocking the will of the people... And thus starts his election campaign
May be he is forced to ask for for time, if MPs manage to pass new ‘No deal No Leave’ law this week?
In that scenario, BJ forced by law to ask for EU extension, which he could then also veto at EU a level. Hence the Gove comment this morning.
Yes but as I say there are better ways to spike that particular scenario... Namely request the extension on the removal of the backstop as it guarantees the same result but plays politically a lot better
There is no time for an act of parliament to be passed, there can only be an indicative vote, which doesn't force him to do anything. He could choose to ignore it completely, or more likely, as sun says, respond in a way that wouldn't change anything.
Yes the EU will certainly say no to thatCant the EU simply say no to that? Not sure what you mean. Please explain
But Boris has fulfilled his legal requirement in requesting an extension (in line with stated government negotiating policy)
And when the EU rejects he gets his hard brexit plus gets to blame the EU and remoaner parliament for scuppering his renegotiation .... Which is then his narrative for a general election
Saying he wants a deal.. then using his own veto looks petulant and is a bad play politically with a ge round the corner... Hence making an unreasonable demand and chucking toys out of the pram is far more likley (and a better gamed out solution ... Also it's very Cummings in terms of making things binary for messaging in the subsequent election)
BBC indicates that there is:
"What could happen next week in Parliament?
Any new law has to pass through all stages of both Houses of Parliament. This would usually take weeks, but it could be done in as little as three days this week.
However, the bill could be challenged by the government and fall at any stage. It could fail to achieve enough support from either MPs or peers in votes held in the Houses.
- Tuesday: Opposition MPs are expected to put forward legislation to stop no deal under "SO24" or Standing Order 24 - the rule that allows MPs to ask for a debate on a "specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration". This would be the bill's first reading - its formal introduction to the House.
- Wednesday: In theory, the bill would then be debated and could potentially pass through all stages of the Commons. However, the bill must pass through a series of votes and receive backing from more than half of MPs in order to pass on to the next stage.
- Thursday: If MPs passed the bill, it could then reach the House of Lords by Thursday, but consideration of the bill could spill into Monday. It will be debated and voted on. The House is not due to sit on Friday.
- Monday, 9 September: If the bill passes these hurdles it could gain Royal Assent, which formally makes it law."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49541942
He can't veto, that's the gift of the EU27. However he can simply say, "give us an extension; we'll be disruptive pricks and block everything you want to get done" and one of the others will do it for him.
It's almost checkmate unfortunately. Cummings has played a good game.
They need to pass legislation to prevent no deal, followed by a Vote of no confidence. The most dangerous part if they manage to get a bill passed is royal assent.
Without the VoNC we'll be back to 1708, where he can ask the queen to refuse royal assent to the bill, and constitutionally she will be pretty much bound to refuse it. (The overwhelming view being that she must act on the advice of the executive). However, with a VoNC they will no longer be a 'responsible government.'
Put simply, nobody actually knows whether legislative power is the gift of the executive or of parliament. And nobody knows whether royal assent is part of the normal package of prerogative powers [which must be acted upon when the government advises it] or whether that would simply be replacing the monarchs veto power with the prime ministers.
The other reason they need a VoNC to pass is due to the discussion above; without it, the government can simply threaten the EU to upset the apple cart if they don't deny the extension. The only way around this issue would be legislation that reads something like "The Prime Minister must negotiate an extension of 6 months to article 50. If he fails to do so, article 50 is hereby revoked by act of parliament."
However, you can guarantee the PM would attempt to deny royal assent to such a bill, and there is almost certainly no majority for such a strongly worded bill to pass. It's check mate because parliament has to navigate these issues in a week, without the support of the government. They will know all this though, and be giving it serious consideration. But it's a tough ask.
It's almost checkmate unfortunately. Cummings has played a good game.
They need to pass legislation to prevent no deal, followed by a Vote of no confidence. The most dangerous part if they manage to get a bill passed is royal assent.
Without the VoNC we'll be back to 1708, where he can ask the queen to refuse royal assent to the bill, and constitutionally she will be pretty much bound to refuse it. (The overwhelming view being that she must act on the advice of the executive). However, with a VoNC they will no longer be a 'responsible government.'
Put simply, nobody actually knows whether legislative power is the gift of the executive or of parliament. And nobody knows whether royal assent is part of the normal package of prerogative powers [which must be acted upon when the government advises it] or whether that would simply be replacing the monarchs veto power with the prime ministers.
The other reason they need a VoNC to pass is due to the discussion above; without it, the government can simply threaten the EU to upset the apple cart if they don't deny the extension. The only way around this issue would be legislation that reads something like "The Prime Minister must negotiate an extension of 6 months to article 50. If he fails to do so, article 50 is hereby revoked by act of parliament."
However, you can guarantee the PM would attempt to deny royal assent to such a bill, and there is almost certainly no majority for such a strongly worded bill to pass. It's check mate because parliament has to navigate these issues in a week, without the support of the government. They will know all this though, and be giving it serious consideration. But it's a tough ask.
Interesting, hadn't considered the Queen refusing to give Royal Assent to a Bill.
i read somewhere that one of the key outputs from extensive focus groups was that BrExit voters are fed up with parliamentary process and want Government to force through referendum result at any cost.
This output is what has emboldened BJ/Cummings, in the belief that they will be forgiven for such in a future GE.
This output is what has emboldened BJ/Cummings, in the belief that they will be forgiven for such in a future GE.
His role and actions are now being highly politicised by remain and labour sympathisers.
He’s (rightfully) getting huge abuse and criticism in mainstream and social media; being positioned as BJ’ Bannon etc.
The dismissal of Javed’s aide is going to be a fascinating sub plot next week, and I think it will lead to his removal.
Which would be a massive blow to BJ’s operational machinery, as I can’t imagine many others willing to be the ‘hatchet’ man.
It's an actual feckfest. The very elements designed to protect our democracy are now being used against it. Boris [or Cummings???] are now virtually a monarchy to themselves.
I think nobody actually envisioned that a bill could be passed through both houses without the consent and against the wishes of the government as they control both the majority and the parliamentary timetable.
I'm just glad that my sister is on maternity and won't have to go to court for these madmen.
Yes. Combined with the electorates dislike for Corbyn and a split remain vote, they could actually win handily too.
ps. Cummings won't be removed imo.
How coincidental that their findings tally with this government's natural M.O., limitation of talent, and preference.
Can't see Cummings going at the moment... He's here to help Boris win an election (imo) and until that point anybody else is expendable ahead of him... After an election Boris will happily throw him under the (Boris/brexit/wooden crate) bus
If I were on the remain side, I’d put resources and and team together to publicly take him down.
he is now under intense scrutiny, which will make it harder for him to operate in his bullyboy style. I also suspect there will be plenty of leaks about him, and perhaps some spectacular allegations about irregular practices so far. And the lady whom he fired will almost certainly sue for unfair dismissal.
He has also made many enemies through his career, so I also expect lots of juicy and salicious skeletons from his personal life to be exposed.
Taking him down damages Boris. Let’s see how the weeks PR plays out!
Last edited:
Apparently he only signed up to deliver Brexit, and will probably leave immediately afterwards anyway. He put a major medical procedure on hold to do this.
Every Prime Minister who intends to get something done uses an 'enforcer'; with Thatcher it was Bernard Ingram, With Blair it was Alister Campbell, with Boris it is Dominic Cummings, its usually a sign of their intention to win, they will risk all the bad press and the name calling that may result as long as their 'enforcer' gets them over the line. You cant come second as PM, as David Cameron found out.
Thanks sam. If that's tried I can see a hundred or so Tory MPs all demanding to stand and speak for 15 minutes each, and at every stage too. I don't know if it's possible to stop that happening, or how stopping members speaking would fit in with parliamentary control if it were. All pretty irrelevant I expect, just part of a build-up to a vote of no confidence.
Only in the Lords, not the Commons.
Brexit supporting Lords can keep talking and/or proposing amendments almost forever and in effect talk it out. Also there is a rumour that a number of Tory Party donors are being lined-up to be made Lords, almost overnight, so they can swing the vote and in effect vote down anything the Government doesn't like.