BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'll ask again, if it's *so* regular, why are people who are familiar with constitutional law, and the speaker of the house, suggesting this will likely cause a constitutional crisis?

That's a question for them. I provided the dates of previous recesses and noted that the current parliamentary session is the longest since the civil war.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'll ask again, if it's *so* regular, why are people who are familiar with constitutional law, and the speaker of the house, suggesting this will likely cause a constitutional crisis?

That's a question for them. I provided the dates of previous recesses and noted that the current parliamentary session is the longest since the civil war.

It does all look like a ploy to force a VONC, with the result that there's no government over the October 31st, and none of it is Johnson's fault.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'll ask again, if it's *so* regular, why are people who are familiar with constitutional law, and the speaker of the house, suggesting this will likely cause a constitutional crisis?

That's a question for them. I provided the dates of previous recesses and noted that the current parliamentary session is the longest since the civil war.

It does all look like a ploy to force a VONC, with the result that there's no government over the October 31st, and none of it is Johnson's fault.

I suspect, as I have said previously, the plan is to force the opposition (including Grieve) to show their hand, and then win the VONC. Then either renegotiate/no deal with a GE shortly afterwards winning all the Brexit Party votes etc.

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

My interpretation of that is 'we see a new session of Parliament as an opportunity to extort more money in order to guarantee our continued support'.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'll ask again, if it's *so* regular, why are people who are familiar with constitutional law, and the speaker of the house, suggesting this will likely cause a constitutional crisis?

That's a question for them. I provided the dates of previous recesses and noted that the current parliamentary session is the longest since the civil war.

It does all look like a ploy to force a VONC, with the result that there's no government over the October 31st, and none of it is Johnson's fault.

I suspect, as I have said previously, the plan is to force the opposition (including Grieve) to show their hand, and then win the VONC. Then either renegotiate/no deal with a GE shortly afterwards winning all the Brexit Party votes etc.

So over a 40 year period parliament has never been prorogued for more than three weeks. In most cases it is for a week or less. They are also always done in periods where there is no time pressure to make important decisions.

It is easy to see why it is constitutionally challenging, when the government has repeatedly voted down all options (including no deal), and so has yet to come to an agreement on what Brexit is, and apparently, Brexit negotiations are still ongoing, that reducing the time to debate and vote on this is not really in the spirit of a parliamentary democracy.

If BoJo was being honest about his motives for doing so, surely the break would be a week or less, rather than three?

TheBigBean

As posted before, here is a list of previous recesses, prorogation and state openings. Note parliament is always closed for much of the period in question.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/ho ... es/recess/

Here is Laura Kuenssberg confirming that the recess has moved from 14th Sept to 10th Sept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49494795

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

As posted before, here is a list of previous recesses, prorogation and state openings. Note parliament is always closed for much of the period in question.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/ho ... es/recess/

Here is Laura Kuenssberg confirming that the recess has moved from 14th Sept to 10th Sept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49494795

Sure but this does not address the issue that parliament has yet to agree to what it wants the gov't to do, and shutting parliament down in a way which reduces time to debate and vote doesn't further that goal.

In a parliamentary democracy, should parliament's ability to debate and vote on legislation and what the govt ought to do not paramount?

coopster_the_1st

I am so going to enjoy watching/listening to John Bercow reading out the Queen's statement in the Commons regarding the Prorogation of Parliament

Karma has some great ways of showing itself 8)

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

As posted before, here is a list of previous recesses, prorogation and state openings. Note parliament is always closed for much of the period in question.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/ho ... es/recess/

Here is Laura Kuenssberg confirming that the recess has moved from 14th Sept to 10th Sept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49494795

Sure but this does not address the issue that parliament has yet to agree to what it wants the gov't to do, and shutting parliament down in a way which reduces time to debate and vote doesn't further that goal.

In a parliamentary democracy, should parliament's ability to debate and vote on legislation and what the govt ought to do not paramount?

Given that parliament hasn't managed much in three years, is five days going to make that much difference?

Separately, I think that the conference season recess was supposed to be subject to a vote which has now been taking out of the hands of MPs. That's not especially democratic. I suspect they would have voted for it, but still it is a legitimate thing to be peeved about.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

As posted before, here is a list of previous recesses, prorogation and state openings. Note parliament is always closed for much of the period in question.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/ho ... es/recess/

Here is Laura Kuenssberg confirming that the recess has moved from 14th Sept to 10th Sept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49494795

Sure but this does not address the issue that parliament has yet to agree to what it wants the gov't to do, and shutting parliament down in a way which reduces time to debate and vote doesn't further that goal.

In a parliamentary democracy, should parliament's ability to debate and vote on legislation and what the govt ought to do not paramount?

Given that parliament hasn't managed much in three years, is five days going to make that much difference?

Separately, I think that the conference season recess was supposed to be subject to a vote which has now been taking out of the hands of MPs. That's not especially democratic. I suspect they would have voted for it, but still it is a legitimate thing to be peeved about.

The whole thing is legitimately something to be peeved about. It also rules out the most sensible option which is to work hard to get a majority for *some* solution. As per previous posts, there are options that were not very far from passing.

If we're plotting "how democratic is this move?" on a scale from 1-10, where 1 is absolutely not, and 10 is as much as possible, this is not getting any higher than a 5 and you know it, whether it's technically within the rulez or not.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

As posted before, here is a list of previous recesses, prorogation and state openings. Note parliament is always closed for much of the period in question.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/ho ... es/recess/

Here is Laura Kuenssberg confirming that the recess has moved from 14th Sept to 10th Sept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49494795

Sure but this does not address the issue that parliament has yet to agree to what it wants the gov't to do, and shutting parliament down in a way which reduces time to debate and vote doesn't further that goal.

In a parliamentary democracy, should parliament's ability to debate and vote on legislation and what the govt ought to do not paramount?

Given that parliament hasn't managed much in three years, is five days going to make that much difference?

Separately, I think that the conference season recess was supposed to be subject to a vote which has now been taking out of the hands of MPs. That's not especially democratic. I suspect they would have voted for it, but still it is a legitimate thing to be peeved about.

The whole thing is legitimately something to be peeved about. It also rules out the most sensible option which is to work hard to get a majority for *some* solution. As per previous posts, there are options that were not very far from passing.

If we're plotting "how democratic is this move?" on a scale from 1-10, where 1 is absolutely not, and 10 is as much as possible, this is not getting any higher than a 5 and you know it, whether it's technically within the rulez or not.

It also prevents Parliament from discussing anything, not only Brexit.

Anyway here's the petition

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

As posted before, here is a list of previous recesses, prorogation and state openings. Note parliament is always closed for much of the period in question.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/ho ... es/recess/

Here is Laura Kuenssberg confirming that the recess has moved from 14th Sept to 10th Sept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49494795

Sure but this does not address the issue that parliament has yet to agree to what it wants the gov't to do, and shutting parliament down in a way which reduces time to debate and vote doesn't further that goal.

In a parliamentary democracy, should parliament's ability to debate and vote on legislation and what the govt ought to do not paramount?

Given that parliament hasn't managed much in three years, is five days going to make that much difference?

Separately, I think that the conference season recess was supposed to be subject to a vote which has now been taking out of the hands of MPs. That's not especially democratic. I suspect they would have voted for it, but still it is a legitimate thing to be peeved about.

The whole thing is legitimately something to be peeved about. It also rules out the most sensible option which is to work hard to get a majority for *some* solution. As per previous posts, there are options that were not very far from passing.

If we're plotting "how democratic is this move?" on a scale from 1-10, where 1 is absolutely not, and 10 is as much as possible, this is not getting any higher than a 5 and you know it, whether it's technically within the rulez or not.

A 5 is presumably quite a long way from an unprecedented constitutional outrage? It's probably more of an unprecedented constitutional outrage that the speaker of the house is calling it an unprecedented constitutional outrage.

I said in my original post that BoJo was using it for his own benefit.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

It also prevents Parliament from discussing anything, not only Brexit.

Anyway here's the petition

I suppose it is timing dependent, but if Parliament is prorogued then how will it debate this petition?

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

It also prevents Parliament from discussing anything, not only Brexit.

Anyway here's the petition

I suppose it is timing dependent, but if Parliament is prorogued then how will it debate this petition?

If they have a petition to debate prorogation then prorogation will have to wait.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

It also prevents Parliament from discussing anything, not only Brexit.

Anyway here's the petition

I suppose it is timing dependent, but if Parliament is prorogued then how will it debate this petition?

If they have a petition to debate prorogation then prorogation will have to wait.

So proroguing can be stopped by having unfinished business in The House? Or do only petitions count?

tailwindhome

So Boris is proroguing parliament to stop MP's from preventing a No-Deal Brexit which is entirely Ireland's fault?

Ben6899

Thanks...

Ben6899 wrote:

Coopster and Goo.

In simple bullet points.

Tell us why leaving the EU on 31st October, with No Deal, is a good thing that you're desperate to see happen.

Thank you

rjsterry

Further evidence that this is a ploy to try to force a VONC and then a GE. From Tom Newton Dunn.

Is Boris’s real aim to invite on a no confidence vote next week and force a general election on his preferred battle ground? Also high risk, as a majority with the Brexit Party still alive is v unsure, and a pact with Farage will mean having to govern with him.

Boris also needs two thirds of MPs to agree to an election under FTPA, can’t just call one himself - and they may not. All depends on whether Corbyn agrees to whip in favour or insist on legislation to block No Deal first.

Some serious disquiet in Govt now about the strategy. One senior minister tells me: “I don’t think No10 really understands that if we don’t have the MPs then we dont have control. I think it is 50/50 what happens next”.

fenix

Robert88 wrote:

My bet is that 48% of the population will benefit financially from Brexit in the medium to long term. They will mostly be those who voted against it.

Why do you think that ? Even if we don't pay the EU membership fee - that's only £6 a month from my taxes.

I'd expect the extra admin and transport delays and costs to eat that up pretty quickly.

That's if my employer doesn't decide that they can work more efficiently from within Europe.

rolf_f

Fenix wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

My bet is that 48% of the population will benefit financially from Brexit in the medium to long term. They will mostly be those who voted against it.

Why do you think that ? Even if we don't pay the EU membership fee - that's only £6 a month from my taxes.

I'd expect the extra admin and transport delays and costs to eat that up pretty quickly.

That's if my employer doesn't decide that they can work more efficiently from within Europe.

Much more realistic I would have thought would be that Remainers will mostly suffer a lot less from Brexit financially (and in numerous other ways). Currency speculators etc will do well though. Every new crackpot brexitland idea Bojo comes up with will result in a brief spike in the value of the pound before people realise it won't happen.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

My bet is that 48% of the population will benefit financially from Brexit in the medium to long term. They will mostly be those who voted against it.

Why do you think that ? Even if we don't pay the EU membership fee - that's only £6 a month from my taxes.

I'd expect the extra admin and transport delays and costs to eat that up pretty quickly.

That's if my employer doesn't decide that they can work more efficiently from within Europe.

Much more realistic I would have thought would be that Remainers will mostly suffer a lot less from Brexit financially (and in numerous other ways). Currency speculators etc will do well though. Every new crackpot brexitland idea Bojo comes up with will result in a brief spike in the value of the pound before people realise it won't happen.

Even *I* think this is too much of a sweeeping statement.

Only the founders of my business voted Brexit. Rank & file definitely did not...and no saying is truer than Money Makes Money.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

My bet is that 48% of the population will benefit financially from Brexit in the medium to long term. They will mostly be those who voted against it.

Why do you think that ? Even if we don't pay the EU membership fee - that's only £6 a month from my taxes.

I'd expect the extra admin and transport delays and costs to eat that up pretty quickly.

That's if my employer doesn't decide that they can work more efficiently from within Europe.

Much more realistic I would have thought would be that Remainers will mostly suffer a lot less from Brexit financially (and in numerous other ways). Currency speculators etc will do well though. Every new crackpot brexitland idea Bojo comes up with will result in a brief spike in the value of the pound before people realise it won't happen.

Even *I* think this is too much of a sweeeping statement.

Only the founders of my business voted Brexit. Rank & file definitely did not...and no saying is truer than Money Makes Money.

'ang on a mo! Which bit of my sweeping statements are you specifically referring to? I think it ought to be the first one but it depends on how you are looking at it.

tailwindhome

From the 9th September to 14th October the UK parliament will be unable to hold the UK government to account on preparations to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement

For anyone in the 'EU caves at the last minute' camp, the last minute would seem to be the EU summit 17th October.

bobmcstuff

Just woke up to see this (in the US).

Pretty outrageous IMO. Not back for 2 weeks but I'll be out on the streets if this goes ahead.

Given everything else hes been doing which has been more in keeping with an election campaign (lots and lots of policy announcements etc.), I think there's a realistic chance he is just doing this to set himself up for a GE. But who knows. Even if some subset of leave voters like the idea, being the party who put Britain into a no deal Brexit by suspending parliament probably isn't a good look.

sungod

Rolf F wrote:

Much more realistic I would have thought would be that Remainers will mostly suffer a lot less from Brexit financially (and in numerous other ways). Currency speculators etc will do well though. Every new crackpot brexitland idea Bojo comes up with will result in a brief spike in the value of the pound before people realise it won't happen.

yep, i'm sure the average remainer will suffer least/benefit most, i automatically made a packet on the market changes post referendum, plus fx impact appreciated foreign holdings vs. gbp, that massively dwarfed losses from inflation and the negative fx impact on foreign spend, i'd expect another windfall if the uk crashes out

i'd assume in comparison to remainers, leavers have a higher proportion of low net worth, they just get higher costs

if the government cuts vat, it disproportionately benefits people with high discretionary spending

if they were to cut interest rates, i don't like that, but they're already so low that it makes little difference

of course the liar johnson has promised an income tax cut for high earners, suits me, though i assume that he's lying about it, because he's a liar

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Further evidence that this is a ploy to try to force a VONC and then a GE. From Tom Newton Dunn.

Is Boris’s real aim to invite on a no confidence vote next week and force a general election on his preferred battle ground? Also high risk, as a majority with the Brexit Party still alive is v unsure, and a pact with Farage will mean having to govern with him.

Boris also needs two thirds of MPs to agree to an election under FTPA, can’t just call one himself - and they may not. All depends on whether Corbyn agrees to whip in favour or insist on legislation to block No Deal first.

Some serious disquiet in Govt now about the strategy. One senior minister tells me: “I don’t think No10 really understands that if we don’t have the MPs then we dont have control. I think it is 50/50 what happens next”.

That's a plausible explanation.

Although in any event its pretty risky strategy. Some might say a ballsy move but that will not please some...

cycleclinic

I don't know what to think about what bojo is up to now apart from I should be angrier than I am.

This will end in a general election and maybe that's the ploy here. Don't let the remainers steal Brexit vote Tory. That would be a mid October election just when I am on holiday.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Further evidence that this is a ploy to try to force a VONC and then a GE. From Tom Newton Dunn.

Is Boris’s real aim to invite on a no confidence vote next week and force a general election on his preferred battle ground? Also high risk, as a majority with the Brexit Party still alive is v unsure, and a pact with Farage will mean having to govern with him.

Boris also needs two thirds of MPs to agree to an election under FTPA, can’t just call one himself - and they may not. All depends on whether Corbyn agrees to whip in favour or insist on legislation to block No Deal first.

Some serious disquiet in Govt now about the strategy. One senior minister tells me: “I don’t think No10 really understands that if we don’t have the MPs then we dont have control. I think it is 50/50 what happens next”.

That's a plausible explanation.

Although in any event its pretty risky strategy. Some might say a ballsy move but that will not please some...

It would be more convincing if anyone believed he was a hardline Brexiter.

Stevo_666

Parliament has been prorogued. Closes between 9-12 Sept and reopens 14 Oct.

Maybe Queenie is a closet Brexiteer?

rolf_f

sungod wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Much more realistic I would have thought would be that Remainers will mostly suffer a lot less from Brexit financially (and in numerous other ways). Currency speculators etc will do well though. Every new crackpot brexitland idea Bojo comes up with will result in a brief spike in the value of the pound before people realise it won't happen.

yep, i'm sure the average remainer will suffer least/benefit most, i automatically made a packet on the market changes post referendum, plus fx impact appreciated foreign holdings vs. gbp, that massively dwarfed losses from inflation and the negative fx impact on foreign spend, i'd expect another windfall if the uk crashes out

i'd assume in comparison to remainers, leavers have a higher proportion of low net worth, they just get higher costs

if the government cuts vat, it disproportionately benefits people with high discretionary spending

if they were to cut interest rates, i don't like that, but they're already so low that it makes little difference

of course the liar johnson has promised an income tax cut for high earners, suits me, though i assume that he's lying about it, because he's a liar

That's the more obvious form of brexit benefitting. I was as much thinking that (despite what Coopster thinks) Remainers are by definition more successful than Leavers - after all, Remainers were happy with the status quo; it worked for them, they were doing OK. They'll have more wealth, less debt, higher income. They aren't the JAMS to a large degree. They are less likely to lose their jobs, businesses and homes than the Remainers. They don't live in the places that have benefitted as much from EU funding that they will no longer get. All generalising but that's what averages are about.

sungod wrote:

of course the liar johnson has promised an income tax cut for high earners, suits me, though i assume that he's lying about it, because he's a liar

You might get that - the Liar might assume that if you don't get what you are promised that you actually won't vote for him. Not the same as the NHS, Police etc type promises where he doesn't need to worry about the consequences of not implementing them.