OV9

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:46 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:26 am Brexit party will steal votes from Tories but no seats. Remain vote will split between Labour/Lib Dems/Green. SNP will take all of Scotland, NI will be what it always is.

Overall: no majority. More delay and uncertainty.

This I reckon. I guess he's risking it on the grounds that whilst they may still only come out of it with a slim majority, crucially they may potentially replace a few rebel Remain Tories with ones that will toe the party line.

The thing is, I’m not sure all the local Tory groups will tie the line and deselect. A couple may go rogue.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:46 am I love the idea of Parliament passing the anti-No Deal legislation and then voting against a GE. Suck on that, Boris.

Forced to do the thing he says he will absolutely not do.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:48 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:46 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:26 am Brexit party will steal votes from Tories but no seats. Remain vote will split between Labour/Lib Dems/Green. SNP will take all of Scotland, NI will be what it always is.

Overall: no majority. More delay and uncertainty.

This I reckon. I guess he's risking it on the grounds that whilst they may still only come out of it with a slim majority, crucially they may potentially replace a few rebel Remain Tories with ones that will toe the party line.

The thing is, I’m not sure all the local Tory groups will tie the line and deselect. A couple may go rogue.

This is true.

I still reckon Lab could lose a few more heartland seats as well though, as they did last time. Hence end result being no effective change.

duncs500 wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:49 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:46 am I love the idea of Parliament passing the anti-No Deal legislation and then voting against a GE. Suck on that, Boris.

Forced to do the thing he says he will absolutely not do.

This concept always seemed peverse just from a logical standpoint that the executive in parliament forms and pursues policy and the commons acts as a check and a balance, not directing the direction of travel (hence why Bercow allowing indicative votes / backbenchers to take control of the order paper was controversial).

Not being a constitutional lawyer I wasn't clear as to the legal background as to whether this could be done. Interestingly the law behind this is that if you pass a bill that places some sort of fetter on the exercise of a prerogative right (i.e. in this case the ability to agree an extension of article 50), unless that effect is de minimis, the bill would need Queen's consent. "Queen's consent" meaning, the Queen in Parliament, i.e. the government's consent.

This means that a bill that forces Boris to do more than merely "seek" an extension and binds him to accept it, is problematic.

It’s all pretty much a crap shoot at this stage. As in, people are stood round shooting at crap and we’re all getting splattered.

GG. wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:57 am

duncs500 wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:49 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:46 am I love the idea of Parliament passing the anti-No Deal legislation and then voting against a GE. Suck on that, Boris.

Forced to do the thing he says he will absolutely not do.

This concept always seemed peverse just from a logical standpoint that the executive in parliament forms and pursues policy and the commons acts as a check and a balance, not directing the direction of travel (hence why Bercow allowing indicative votes / backbenchers to take control of the order paper.

Not being a constitutional lawyer I wasn't clear as to the legal background as to whether this could be done. Interestingly the law behind this is that if you pass a bill that places some sort of fetter on the exercise of a prerogative right (i.e. in this case the ability to agree an extension of article 50), unless that effect is de minimis, the bill would need Queen's consent. "Queen's consent" meaning, the Queen in Parliament, i.e. the government's consent.

This means that a bill that forces Boris to do more than merely "seek" an extension and binds him to accept it, is problematic.

Government sets direction, Parliament votes on it. The issue here is that the Tories can’t command a majority. It’s not a check and balance, it’s how it works. The majority of Parliament must agree.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:59 am It’s all pretty much a crap shoot at this stage. As in, people are stood round shooting at crap and we’re all getting splattered.

Do any Leave voters want to have a go at explaining why Gove has decided not to publish the watered down version of Yellowhammer ahead of a potential General Election? Is it because the stuff contained in it is so good, the advantages of No Deal so great, that they think it would be unfair on the other parties?

Rich B wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:27 am

Jobbo wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:21 am

Rich B wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:17 am All without taking no deal off the table (and completely cutting the legs off any negotiations).

No Deal is not a negotiation tool, but since the government seems not to be doing any negotiating anyway then it's a moot point.

The threat of leaving on the 31st can only exist if you have a second option to agreeing a deal.

Negotiations don't generally depend on threats to be successful.

Anyway, there are other options: different deals (none proposed by our government, despite their protestations) or revoking Art.50. So the EU would never be able to force us to take any particular deal.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:45 am Do any Leave voters want to have a go at explaining why Gove has decided not to publish the watered down version of Yellowhammer ahead of a potential General Election? Is it because the stuff contained in it is so good, the advantages of No Deal so great, that they think it would be unfair on the other parties?

No.

Be good to see how tonights vote goes

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:48 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:46 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:26 am Brexit party will steal votes from Tories but no seats. Remain vote will split between Labour/Lib Dems/Green. SNP will take all of Scotland, NI will be what it always is.

Overall: no majority. More delay and uncertainty.

This I reckon. I guess he's risking it on the grounds that whilst they may still only come out of it with a slim majority, crucially they may potentially replace a few rebel Remain Tories with ones that will toe the party line.

The thing is, I’m not sure all the local Tory groups will tie the line and deselect. A couple may go rogue.

Okay so seemingly this is not true. If an MP is sacked and the local association doesn't acquiesce to CCHQ, both the association and MP are sacked

<

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:58 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:48 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:46 am

This I reckon. I guess he's risking it on the grounds that whilst they may still only come out of it with a slim majority, crucially they may potentially replace a few rebel Remain Tories with ones that will toe the party line.

The thing is, I’m not sure all the local Tory groups will tie the line and deselect. A couple may go rogue.

Okay so seemingly this is not true. If an MP is sacked and the local association doesn't acquiesce to CCHQ, both the association and MP are sacked

<

So you end up with the (presumably popular, given that the local assoc backed them) incumbent standing as an independent vs a hastily bussed in alternative with no local support. That's not ideal, is it?

I've totally and completely lost any form of comprehension of literally anything that is going on right now. I don't get one single part of it.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:04 pm

So you end up with the (presumably popular, given that the local assoc backed them) incumbent standing as an independent vs a hastily bussed in alternative with no local support. That's not ideal, is it?

No. He's written an interesting piece on it all actually. Makes you realise that the gradual creep of powers by predecessors can have potentially significant unforeseen consequences further down the line.

In the case of Hammond, I was under the impression that local members were keen to avoid him being reselected, but the executive didn't consult with them.

Live tweets thread from the court case in Scotland:

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:30 pmMakes you realise that the gradual creep of powers by predecessors can have potentially significant unforeseen consequences further down the line.

That's literally why the prorogation is so terrifying. Slippery slope...

So up to yesterday Corbyn was saying lets have a General Election and now he doesn't want one - priceless

Broccers wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:17 pm So up to yesterday Corbyn was saying lets have a General Election and now he doesn't want one - priceless

Boris wants to call an election and get MPs to vote for it to take place before 31st. Then he'll move the date and we get No Deal by default. It's much better for Boris to be defeated today, and then left in power to deliver the result of the anti-No Deal bill. It's Boris setting a trap, but he's been found out on that one and no one is falling for it. The only way he'll get his GE is if the date can't be moved.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:45 pm

Broccers wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:17 pm So up to yesterday Corbyn was saying lets have a General Election and now he doesn't want one - priceless

Boris wants to call an election and get MPs to vote for it to take place before 31st. Then he'll move the date and we get No Deal by default. It's much better for Boris to be defeated today, and then left in power to deliver the result of the anti-No Deal bill. It's Boris setting a trap, but he's been found out on that one and no one is falling for it. The only way he'll get his GE is if the date can't be moved.

That's what I thought when I first heard this tbh. Keep parliament out of the way doing anything but Brexit until the 31st of Oct so he can get his No Deal then he'd probably rather not be in power for the fallout.

Wait a minute, that sounds familiar.

Maybe theres another avenue everyone has not been told about and isnt blatantly repeating media soundbites? Who knows