Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
the most credible remainers' tactic is to deprive BJ his majority officially.
The LibDems may win Radnorshire by-eleciion this Thursday, only one tory MP needs to cross the floor to join the LibDems to make it a reality.
I'd like to see Rory Stewart leading the remainers troop.
Another important subject - which I can't see any reply from you about - is me asking you what system of government you would have seeing as you obviously don't believe in democracy.
Care to share?
There's even much discussion in some quarters as to what 'perfect' would even be.
Though everybody is in agreement that a question mark does not need a full stop after it. Only idiots and fools and people who think they're smarter than they actually are think otherwise on that one.
It's working out just perfectly at the moment. We've now got the government we should have had right after the vote - and also people like Cummings in there to shake up the civil service. Dream team.
Attention span is usually determined by the quality of the input.
Ignore what democratic vote? the referendum was corrupted by illegal acts.
Who said this?
When we have won
who will ask us about
the method?
By all means let's have a democratic vote not something bought with this
Last edited:
Clearly your ignorance is bliss.
Ever heard of the Opium wars?
Great stuff from Toby Young on how 'No-deal' can not be stopped if the govn't is determined to have things go that way:
I've been thinking about the various ways in which those MPs opposed to no deal could prevent the UK leaving the EU by October 31st and, from their point of view, there are no good options.
They could table -- and try and pass -- a motion opposing no deal on an Opposition Day, assuming the Government schedules any between now and October 31st. But even if such a motion passed, it wouldn't be legally binding. Ditto a motion 'considered' during an Emergency Debate.
They could try and amend the Queen's Speech at the start of the next parliamentary session, blocking no deal, but the Government has given no indication it intends to bring forward a Queen's Speech before October 31st and could simply drag out the current session.
They could try and pass a motion of no confidence in the Government, but what would be the point? That couldn't happen until after the House returns on Sept 4th and the date of the ensuing General Election wouldn't then fall until *after* the October 31st deadline.
It's customary for a government not to make any major policy decisions during a General Election campaign, and the anti-no-dealers would argue that if @BorisJohnson didn't ask the EU to extend the deadline until after the election he would be doing that by default.
But @Geoffrey_Cox would argue that Parliament effectively took the decision to leave the EU when it voted by an overwhelming majority to invoke A50 so @BorisJohnson would not be making a new decision by not asking for a extension.
No doubt that would be challenged in the High Court, but on the face of it the Government's case is stronger and it would be a high-risk strategy for the anti-no-dealers to force a General Election without a good chance of prevailing in that case.
It would be particularly risky for @jeremycorbyn to back a no confidence motion, given the risk that on the day the election is held we will have left the EU with no deal having just happened.
In that scenario, the biggest issue in the election campaign will be which party is better prepared to govern the UK in the aftermath of a no deal Brexit? @UKLabour, which has made no preparations for such an outcome, or the @Conservatives, who will have a firm plan in place?
Factor in that the @brexitparty_uk won't take as many votes off the @Conservatives if the UK has left the EU on the date of the election as it would if the election is held before we've left, and @UKLabour's chances of winning such a contest seem slim.
mentions will calculate that @UKLabour will have a better chance of winning an election if it's held next year, by which time (he believes) the economy will have begun to suffer as a result of no deal, and, with it, the @Conservatives reputation for economic competence.
For all of those reasons, I don't think @jeremycorbyn would back a vote of no confidence the Government if he thought it would lead to an election.
But would it lead to an election? If the Government loses a confidence vote, @jeremycorbyn would have 14 days to try to cobble together a coalition of some kind and, if a vote of confidence is passed in the resulting Government, he would then be Prime Minister.
That is the anti-no-dealers best hope of preventing the UK's exit on Oct 31st, but it's a threadbare one. Corbyn might be able to secure the support of the @theSNP, @LibDems, @Plaid_Cymru, @ForChange_Now and @TheGreenParty, but he couldn't count on every member of @UKLabour.
By my reckoning, that takes him to about 300, so he'd need at least 23 @Conservatives MPs to support him. Won't happen. I know there are a fair number of die-hard anti-no-dealers on the @Conservatives benches, but how many would prefer a @jeremycorbyn Government to no deal?
No, it seems almost certain that if the current Government is absolutely determined to take us out with no deal by October 31st, it can do so. And this will dawn on the leaders of the EU soon enough, at which point they *might* return to the negotiating table.
Which means we may well end up leaving with a deal by October 31st.
Indeed, if the anti-no-dealers really want to prevent the Government leaving without a deal, they should make it clear ASAP that they don't intend to obstruct a no-deal Brexit (because they can't), thereby increasing the pressure on the EU leaders to renegotiate.
But I doubt they'll come to their senses. On the contrary, they'll continue to scurry about, vainly trying to obstruct no deal, thereby making a no deal more likely.
Some people responding to this thread have suggested another alternative — that A50 could be revoked by an Act of Parliament. But even if it could command a majority (doubtful) there wouldn’t be enough time btwn Sept 4th and Oct 31st for it to become law.
I've been thinking about the various ways in which those MPs opposed to no deal could prevent the UK leaving the EU by October 31st and, from their point of view, there are no good options.
They could table -- and try and pass -- a motion opposing no deal on an Opposition Day, assuming the Government schedules any between now and October 31st. But even if such a motion passed, it wouldn't be legally binding. Ditto a motion 'considered' during an Emergency Debate.
They could try and amend the Queen's Speech at the start of the next parliamentary session, blocking no deal, but the Government has given no indication it intends to bring forward a Queen's Speech before October 31st and could simply drag out the current session.
They could try and pass a motion of no confidence in the Government, but what would be the point? That couldn't happen until after the House returns on Sept 4th and the date of the ensuing General Election wouldn't then fall until *after* the October 31st deadline.
It's customary for a government not to make any major policy decisions during a General Election campaign, and the anti-no-dealers would argue that if @BorisJohnson didn't ask the EU to extend the deadline until after the election he would be doing that by default.
But @Geoffrey_Cox would argue that Parliament effectively took the decision to leave the EU when it voted by an overwhelming majority to invoke A50 so @BorisJohnson would not be making a new decision by not asking for a extension.
No doubt that would be challenged in the High Court, but on the face of it the Government's case is stronger and it would be a high-risk strategy for the anti-no-dealers to force a General Election without a good chance of prevailing in that case.
It would be particularly risky for @jeremycorbyn to back a no confidence motion, given the risk that on the day the election is held we will have left the EU with no deal having just happened.
In that scenario, the biggest issue in the election campaign will be which party is better prepared to govern the UK in the aftermath of a no deal Brexit? @UKLabour, which has made no preparations for such an outcome, or the @Conservatives, who will have a firm plan in place?
Factor in that the @brexitparty_uk won't take as many votes off the @Conservatives if the UK has left the EU on the date of the election as it would if the election is held before we've left, and @UKLabour's chances of winning such a contest seem slim.
mentions will calculate that @UKLabour will have a better chance of winning an election if it's held next year, by which time (he believes) the economy will have begun to suffer as a result of no deal, and, with it, the @Conservatives reputation for economic competence.
For all of those reasons, I don't think @jeremycorbyn would back a vote of no confidence the Government if he thought it would lead to an election.
But would it lead to an election? If the Government loses a confidence vote, @jeremycorbyn would have 14 days to try to cobble together a coalition of some kind and, if a vote of confidence is passed in the resulting Government, he would then be Prime Minister.
That is the anti-no-dealers best hope of preventing the UK's exit on Oct 31st, but it's a threadbare one. Corbyn might be able to secure the support of the @theSNP, @LibDems, @Plaid_Cymru, @ForChange_Now and @TheGreenParty, but he couldn't count on every member of @UKLabour.
By my reckoning, that takes him to about 300, so he'd need at least 23 @Conservatives MPs to support him. Won't happen. I know there are a fair number of die-hard anti-no-dealers on the @Conservatives benches, but how many would prefer a @jeremycorbyn Government to no deal?
No, it seems almost certain that if the current Government is absolutely determined to take us out with no deal by October 31st, it can do so. And this will dawn on the leaders of the EU soon enough, at which point they *might* return to the negotiating table.
Which means we may well end up leaving with a deal by October 31st.
Indeed, if the anti-no-dealers really want to prevent the Government leaving without a deal, they should make it clear ASAP that they don't intend to obstruct a no-deal Brexit (because they can't), thereby increasing the pressure on the EU leaders to renegotiate.
But I doubt they'll come to their senses. On the contrary, they'll continue to scurry about, vainly trying to obstruct no deal, thereby making a no deal more likely.
Some people responding to this thread have suggested another alternative — that A50 could be revoked by an Act of Parliament. But even if it could command a majority (doubtful) there wouldn’t be enough time btwn Sept 4th and Oct 31st for it to become law.
Don't spoil the fun, lets have the crash out and watch the show as the leave campaign and Boris run for cover .
In his case for the second time.
No we did not, far too many people were excluded and an illegal targeted last minute propaganda campaign was employed using illegally harvested data.
You know that but lie about it.
The only reason the Referendum couldn't be declared void in law was because it was advisory only and the Torys ignored that too.
If as is claimed TM was a remainer, why didn't she agree the Referendum was void?
And why did she try to get a deal?
Because the leave campaign made all those promises of better times to come to get the public support they needed, and she tried to achieve a deal in, line with that.
Now after all this time she is blamed for something Boris ran away from.
So now what do we have, Boris will be satisfied to get away with nothing for the public , just relief for the swindling rich protecting their off shore assets with a no deal Brexit.
Meanwhile lying through his teeth with another set of promises he has no intention of keeping to keep the plebs happy.
Excellent! the Conservatives will get the Blame when Brexit crashes the economy, what could be better than that?
Hopefully they will get a landslide win, taking all the Brexit party vote too.
Illegal acts?
This is interesting. I'm at the BBC today. I know a number of remain leaning journalists who would be delighted to run a story that could bring on a second referendum.
I promise to pass the info on and also promsise to keep your sources out of any public eye. Either let me know on here or please pm me and I will pass the allegations on. I can assure this will be followed up.
I await your evidence eagerly.
Unless you are lying?
Dear Idiot,
Read up on East India Company and Opium Wars.
Yours faithfully,
oyster.