Brexit!

[WigstonWanderer]

I’m genuinely surprised that the DUP have been so pro Brexit. Surely it must have been obvious to them from the start that it would make life so much more complicated for them. Not to mention that the NI electorate doesn’t seem keen, probably because they have the intelligence to realise the issues it creates in an already fragile setup.

[Alf Bentley]

17 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Johnson was defeated 322 to 306 and he says it "was pretty close" so wants to do it again, as hopes people will "change their minds".

 

What percentage of votes that 306 represents? 48%. And 322? 52% 

 

But... But... YoU LoSt BoRiS, gEt OvEr It! 

 

 

He wants to vote again on his Deal. I presume that's because he wants to show the EU that he has the numbers to pass it, so that they hang fire on approving the extension, putting pressure on MPs to pass the full legislation.

 

Although it's very close, at the moment it unfortunately looks as if he just about has the numbers. He only needs 8-9 MPs to switch sides from the Letwin vote. He already has several Tory rebels, including Letwin himself, who've said they'll switch.

There were also at least 3-4 Labour MPs who didn't oppose Letwin but are likely to support the deal (though some of them only abstained on Letwin - so only gain him 1 vote, not 2). Still close, though, and by no means certain he gets the full legislation through.

 

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

The opposition can ask that question but Conservative party isn't under any obligation whatsoever to answer it, it can go into an election with whatever it wants to.
 

 

Sorry, my previous point was unclear. I meant that, in assessing the risk, the opposition need to ask themselves whether a Tory majority govt would switch to No Deal in January or December.

 

Of course, BJ can and will say whatever he wants to suit his or his party's interests. As he's known to be the most dishonest man in the history of the universe, it would be absolutely pointless to ask him!  

[Guest MattP]

 

 

[RoboFox]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

 

Not so sure he does. Personally, I'd rather listen to Bray shouting through a megaphone from the other end of Parliament Square than Dave's fluffer basically flogging his PR garbage.

 

Also, Secker is supposedly paid to be impartial. Top journalism once again.

[The Horse's Mouth]

Theres no way we dont get a big Tory majority now this pissing about is just gonna hurt the opposition 

[Guest MattP]

26 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Not so sure he does. Personally, I'd rather listen to Bray shouting through a megaphone from the other end of Parliament Square than Dave's fluffer basically flogging his PR garbage.

 

Also, Secker is supposedly paid to be impartial. Top journalism once again.

For three and half years almost every day he's dedicated himself to shouting as loud as he can over people trying to have a proper debate about politics, I don't understand why anyone from either side would have any support for him.

 

At some point he must realise himself what a total tw@t he is as well. I don't think news impartiality extends to hecklers either. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

For three and half years almost every day he's dedicated himself to shouting as loud as he can over people trying to have a proper debate about politics, I don't understand why anyone from either side would have any support for him.

 

At some point he must realise himself what a total tw@t he is as well. I don't think news impartiality extends to hecklers either. 

Attention-seeking nobheads like him do the Remain side far more harm than good. Christ, seeing some of the outfits on show on Saturday even I thought of changing my vote...

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I’m genuinely surprised that the DUP have been so pro Brexit. Surely it must have been obvious to them from the start that it would make life so much more complicated for them. Not to mention that the NI electorate doesn’t seem keen, probably because they have the intelligence to realise the issues it creates in an already fragile setup.

I take it people who voted leave don't have enough intelligence to realise it then?

 

I (like others) originally said that if Boris hadn't taken us out by 31st October, then I wouldn't be voting for him, but I've changed my mind after seeing it play out, he'll be getting my vote for sure.

Edited 21 October 2019 by Leicester_Loyal

[thursday_next]

What I would very much like to know is:

 

Can BJ force a general election any time he likes, or can Parliament stop him?

 

If all of this leads to a second referendum, and the leavers win in support of Boris's deal, what's to stop Parliament from attaching an amendment to the deal which would ensure that we remained in the Customs Union and Single Market, making the whole process redundant? If so, it makes the second referendum so totally flawed that I'm surprised anyone is even considering this.   

 

I am sorry, I've not been here for a while, and I can't be bothered to read the whole thread in case it doesn't provide me with an answer. I'd just appreciate the responses made by people who know more about politics than I do. 

Edited 21 October 2019 by thursday_next

[egg_fried_rice]

1 hour ago, thursday_next said:

What I would very much like to know is:

 

Can BJ force a general election any time he likes, or can Parliament stop him?

 

If all of this leads to a Second Referendum, and the leavers win in support of Boris's deal, what's to stop Parliament from attaching an amendment to the deal which would ensure that we remained in the Customs Union and Single Market, making the whole process redundant?

 

I am sorry, I've not been here for a while, and I can't be bothered to read the whole thread in case it doesn't provide me with an answer. I'd just appreciate the responses made by people who know more about politics than I do. 

On your first point - and someone more knowledgeable than me may correct this - I think the government requires a super majority of MPs (two thirds?) to vote in favour of it to call an election before the fixed term is over. I can't remember the numbers, but the vast majority of MPs backed May's back in 2017.

 

On your second point, staying in the CU and SM would need to be both negotiated and agreed upon between our government and the EU and then voted on by parliament. I believe they could technically raise a bill that stipulated that any Brexit deal put before them must include this, but they just wouldn't have anywhere near the numbers to pass this. If a second referendum supported Boris's deal, the likelihood it wouldn't pass in parliament is very low as the voting margins are currently very tight and they'd be going against the advice of the public to an even greater degree than some already suggest.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, thursday_next said:

What I would very much like to know is:

 

Can BJ force a general election any time he likes, or can Parliament stop him?

 

 

13 minutes ago, egg_fried_rice said:

On your first point - and someone more knowledgeable than me may correct this - I think the government requires a super majority of MPs (two thirds?) to vote in favour of it to call an election before the fixed term is over. I can't remember the numbers, but the vast majority of MPs backed May's back in 2017.

 

On your second point, staying in the CU and SM would need to be both negotiated and agreed upon between our government and the EU and then voted on by parliament. I believe they could technically raise a bill that stipulated that any Brexit deal put before them must include this, but they just wouldn't have anywhere near the numbers to pass this. If a second referendum supported Boris's deal, the likelihood it wouldn't pass in parliament is very low as the voting margins are currently very tight and they'd be going against the advice of the public to an even greater degree than some already suggest.

 

 

 

That's correct that a 2/3 majority is required if BJ calls for an early election. He has at least a couple of other routes, but they're complicated....

- A no-confidence vote would only require a simple majority. The opposition parties have opted not to table one recently, though Labour - or SNP - might do so before long. Maybe BJ could call a no-confidence vote in himself, but would look odd!

- He could resign as PM (but not as Tory party leader)

 

In both those cases, there'd then be a 14-day period during which Parliament would see whether someone else (Hunt? Clarke? Corbyn? Beckett?) could form a govt.....seems unlikely, but would be a massive risk for BJ to take.

In either case, if no alternative govt was approved within 14 days, then there would be an election.

[Mike Oxlong]

The American chat shows and lecture circuit are going to line Bercow’s pension fund once he has moved on 

[thursday_next]

Thanks, egg_fried_rice and Alf Bentley.

 

I don't believe Boris would get a super majority as he is much more formidable than May and the majority of Parliamentarians would like to keep him in chains rather than risk him getting a majority.

 

You probably missed my edit, which was 'If so, it makes the second referendum so totally flawed that I'm surprised anyone is even considering this'. You say that it is most unlikely that any second referendum result would be challenged in Parliament, but the fact remains that it could, not even if the Labour members would say 'cross my heart and hope to die, I promise not to challenge the referendum result'. I haven't seen this highlighted on TV anywhere. To me it makes the second referendum option null and void.      

 

 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The American chat shows and lecture circuit are going to line Bercow’s pension fund once he has moved on 

Ruined the office of speaker for his own wallet - sickening.

 

Speaking of him.

 

It was the shittest impression I've ever seen of Tony Benn as well.

[RoboFox]

Twitter aflame with thousands of burning gammons. 

 

Brexit Barrys who somehow have a better grasp of parliamentary procedure than the speaker.

 

He signalled this would happen on Saturday, why are people surprised?

 

Erskine May seems clear that the Speaker cannot allow Johnson to bring back his meaningful vote today. 

 

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4748/matters-already-decided-during-the-same-session/?highlight=Matters already

[egg_fried_rice]

2 minutes ago, thursday_next said:

Thanks, egg_fried_rice and Alf Bentley.

 

I don't believe Boris would get a super majority as he is much more formidable than May and the majority of Parliamentarians would like to keep him in chains rather than risk him getting a majority.

 

You probably missed my edit, which was 'If so, it makes the second referendum so totally flawed that I'm surprised anyone is even considering this'. You say that it is most unlikely that any second referendum result would be challenged in Parliament, but the fact remains that it could, not even if the Labour members would say 'cross my heart and hope to die, I promise not to challenge the referendum result'. I haven't seen this highlighted on TV anywhere. To me it makes the second referendum option null and void.      

 

 

I think you're missing the point a bit.

 

To be effectively challenged, it would need a majority in parliament to agree to do so. Even without additional public support from a second referendum, Boris may well have enough votes to pass his deal as things currently stand but the margins are very tight. With second referendum support for Boris's deal, you'll have MPs who currently don't support the deal change their minds to reflect the opinions of their constituents.

 

I say unlikely because it's not impossible, but unlikely in the way that it's unlikely Rachel Riley would divorce her husband, give up her unborn baby, and shack up with you. Technically possible, but, ya know. In both cases, I think there would be riots.

 

There are arguments for and against a second referendum but this one doesn't really stack up. Ultimately a second referendum which voted in favour of Boris's deal would be positive for anyone who wanted to see Brexit delivered under those terms.

 

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Twitter aflame with thousands of burning gammons. 

 

Brexit Barrys who somehow have a better grasp of parliamentary procedure than the speaker.

 

He signalled this would happen on Saturday, why are people surprised?

 

Erskine May seems clear that the Speaker cannot allow Johnson to bring back his meaningful vote today. 

 

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4748/matters-already-decided-during-the-same-session/?highlight=Matters already

Yeah via precedent he's right on this.

 

I'm not going to tell everyone though as it's doing a great job rallying the leave vote. 

[thursday_next]

I don't think it's so far-fetched. Ideally, if there has to be a second referendum, I'd rather see 'leave' and 'remain' options put on the ballot paper. If you don't think that Parliament would instantly block all proposals to leave without a deal then you're more optimistic than I am. In which case, why not refine the Brexit vote until it reveals what the public want, i.e. membership of the Single Market and Customs Union, although many did not know that was they were voting for. 

 

I have shagged Rachel Riley in the past, the results weren't satisfactory, at least not to her. I'm stalking Rebecca Hall at the moment.

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

Pull the vote Saturday afternoon and bleat about it when you can’t have it on Monday  

[lgfualol]

Bloody brexiteers like Boris want to keep voting until they get what they want

[Leicester_Loyal]

*Awaits new election polls*

 

[StanSP]

Isn't Bercow just ensuring the rules of the House are met, in line with law and legislation? 

 

Why is everyone shitting their knickers about it? Is it just because they don't like him? 

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Isn't Bercow just ensuring the rules of the House are met, in line with law and legislation? 

 

Why is everyone shitting their knickers about it? Is it just because they don't like him? 

This time he has.

 

But obviously the amount of times he's thrown precedent out of the window when standing orders or bills are needed urgently by the other side, coupled with his clandestine meetings with politicians like Grieve and members of the EU do show he is partial and that's going to lead to criticism now whatever he does.

 

When all this is over hopefully we'll have some sort of clarity and legal basis for how the speaker should behave based on Erskine May. I'd like to see the clerk's advice published for a start - maybe even instead of deputy speakers we have a panel of three - restricting the absolute power he had.

 

One of his deputies has criticised him this week - https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/107399/deputy-speaker-eleanor-laing-suggests-john-bercow-has-loaded-dice-over

 

Restoring confidence in the speaker is absolutely essential in the next parliament. 

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The American chat shows and lecture circuit are going to line Bercow’s pension fund once he has moved on 

 

 

Edited 21 October 2019 by Izzy

[RoboFox]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm not going to tell everyone though as it's doing a great job rallying the leave vote. 

 

Just looking across the news coverage briefly and the majority of the media outlets seem to be taking the same approach. There's little mention of his decision being based on 175 year old parliamentary procedure.

 

And out the people come, furious. As ill-informed as always.

 

"hez stopin dimocrisy, commiting treezun!"