Discussion:
Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past
Add Reply
MM
2019-08-09 10:29:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that

"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

The full article (paywall) is available here:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 10:48:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-09 12:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnso
ns-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past.
Why would anyone want to extend the Brexit date *again*?

We have already done that and it hasn’t got us anywhere. The simple
equation is that the country voted by a majority to leave, but the
establishment (who are used to getting their own way irrespective of our sham
democracy) don’t want us to leave.

The establishment tried to frighten us into remaining in the EU before the
referendum, and that failed; so the only tactic they have left is to bully
MPs into doing the opposite of what the country voted for while pretending
this is democracy in action.

MPs are so thick and power hungry they fell for it, and so there is only one
leave option left; which is to ignore our undemocratic parliament and force
through the wishes of the people 4 years after they voted.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 13:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnso
ns-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past.
Why would anyone want to extend the Brexit date *again*?
Increases the chance of it not happening, I'd guess. Never mind the
cost to the country's soul.
Post by Keema's Nan
We have already done that and it hasn’t got us anywhere. The simple
equation is that the country voted by a majority to leave, but the
establishment (who are used to getting their own way irrespective of our sham
democracy) don’t want us to leave.
The establishment tried to frighten us into remaining in the EU before the
referendum, and that failed; so the only tactic they have left is to bully
MPs into doing the opposite of what the country voted for while pretending
this is democracy in action.
MPs are so thick and power hungry they fell for it, and so there is only one
leave option left; which is to ignore our undemocratic parliament and force
through the wishes of the people 4 years after they voted.
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 14:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.

But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.

And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.

In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.

I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Incubus
2019-08-09 15:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 16:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
I have to say that that was the first thing I thought of, but some games
are too dirty to play.
Incubus
2019-08-09 16:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
I have to say that that was the first thing I thought of, but some games
are too dirty to play.
Not for the Left and Remoaners in general, I have come to learn. Sometimes,
taking the moral high ground is a serious disadvantage.
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 18:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
I have to say that that was the first thing I thought of, but some games
are too dirty to play.
Not for the Left and Remoaners in general, I have come to learn. Sometimes,
taking the moral high ground is a serious disadvantage.
But you cannot allow yourself to be dragged down to their level. You
must retain your integrity.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 23:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
I have to say that that was the first thing I thought of, but some games
are too dirty to play.
Not for the Left and Remoaners in general, I have come to learn. Sometimes,
taking the moral high ground is a serious disadvantage.
Alinsky said that one must hold the enemy to their own rules. But I'm
guessing that he was of a leftist persuasion.
JNugent
2019-08-09 15:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see.  Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be?  The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems.
Joe Swanson, isn't it?

He used to be in "Family Guy". Now he identifies as a woman.
Pamela
2019-08-10 10:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 10:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.

That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.

By the time the HoC reconvened, we would be out and the new MPs would have to
carry on regardless. I’m not sure if that is what Boris is considering, but
it would stick two fingers up to those MPs who think they can force chaos
onto leaving the EU and undermine our position even further.
Yellow
2019-08-10 12:17:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.

The opposition then have two just two choices, for or against, and
voting against (or abstaining) would make Labour look pretty silly given
their claim that they do not in fact have confidence in Boris as PM.
Post by Keema's Nan
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
By the time the HoC reconvened, we would be out and the new MPs would have to
carry on regardless. I?m not sure if that is what Boris is considering, but
it would stick two fingers up to those MPs who think they can force chaos
onto leaving the EU and undermine our position even further.
tim...
2019-08-10 14:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)

tim
Yellow
2019-08-10 14:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
tim...
2019-08-10 15:25:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention

but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion

tim
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 15:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention
but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion
tim
Where does it state this?
tim...
2019-08-10 18:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention
but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion
tim
Where does it state this?
you'll have to ask that nice Mr Rees-Moog to explain

tim
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 20:49:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would
call > > > for a
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention
but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion
tim
Where does it state this?
you'll have to ask that nice Mr Rees-Moog to explain
It's a matter of getting it on the order paper for the business of the
House.

The business of the House is normally dictated by the government, except
where there is an opposition day. However, I understand that there are
no more opposition days available before the end of October.
Accordingly, the opposition can only proceed by means of a no confidence
motion which by convention "will take precedence over normal
Parliamentary business for that day". For it to be allowed to do that
it will have to be tabled by the official opposition (ie Labour), or
with its backing.
Yellow
2019-08-10 21:56:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention
but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion
OK - I did not know that.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 15:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
Oh?

And who are these people, as given by the rules you seem to have found?
Yellow
2019-08-10 21:55:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 16:37:53 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
Oh?
And who are these people, as given by the rules you seem to have found?
Do what?
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 17:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
Good job you're not PM then :)

Anyway, Boris simply wouldn't be believed if he said he had no
confidence in himself or his government.
Post by Yellow
The opposition then have two just two choices, for or against, and
voting against (or abstaining) would make Labour look pretty silly given
their claim that they do not in fact have confidence in Boris as PM.
But he doesn't have to do what you say, and it's very unlikely he could
anyway under the constitution. If he wanted an early general election
he would merely do what Mrs May did in 2017 and propose one under the
provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which would have the same
effect on the opposition as what you suggested.
tim...
2019-08-10 18:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
Good job you're not PM then :)
Anyway, Boris simply wouldn't be believed if he said he had no confidence
in himself or his government.
Post by Yellow
The opposition then have two just two choices, for or against, and
voting against (or abstaining) would make Labour look pretty silly given
their claim that they do not in fact have confidence in Boris as PM.
But he doesn't have to do what you say, and it's very unlikely he could
anyway under the constitution. If he wanted an early general election he
would merely do what Mrs May did in 2017 and propose one under the
provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which would have the same
effect on the opposition as what you suggested.
but I bet his backbenchers would vote against

tim
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 20:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
Good job you're not PM then :)
Anyway, Boris simply wouldn't be believed if he said he had no
confidence in himself or his government.
Post by Yellow
The opposition then have two just two choices, for or against, and
voting against (or abstaining) would make Labour look pretty silly given
their claim that they do not in fact have confidence in Boris as PM.
But he doesn't have to do what you say, and it's very unlikely he
could anyway under the constitution.  If he wanted an early general
election he would merely do what Mrs May did in 2017 and propose one
under the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which would
have the same effect on the opposition as what you suggested.
but I bet his backbenchers would vote against
If that's a real concern, it's just another reason why he won't do it.

Now, if the polls showed a substantial lead for the Conservatives, his
backbenchers would almost certainly fall in line.

Except that that didn't work too well the last time in 2017.
Pamela
2019-08-10 12:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with
the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem
Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has
legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War
Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have
to be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that
shrill woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But
that entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to
be proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got
40% of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in
the polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and
would suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at
all from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario,
the Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would
hoover up a large majority of their votes in any general election.
They'd attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the
LibDems, the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst
themselves and split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a
Remain party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022
as scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass
retrospective legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before
2022 looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the
election, and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
By the time the HoC reconvened, we would be out and the new MPs would
have to carry on regardless. I'm not sure if that is what Boris is
considering, but it would stick two fingers up to those MPs who think
they can force chaos onto leaving the EU and undermine our position even
further.
It was obvious this parliamentary session wouldn't run the full term but,
despite this, poor Norman has consistently predicted it would not end
sooner. It was only a matter of time before he got egg on his face.
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 17:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
It was obvious this parliamentary session wouldn't run the full term
Parliamentary sessions do not have terms, full or otherwise. They run
until Parliament decides to adjourn them. And then they reconvene some
time later.
Post by Pamela
but, despite this, poor Norman has consistently predicted it would not end
sooner. It was only a matter of time before he got egg on his face.
Has an election been called then?

If it has, I do apologise. I'm afraid I must have missed it.
Ian Jackson
2019-08-10 12:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on using
a shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any reason
why the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold until we
get a government that they know truly represents the majority of UK
citizens?
--
Ian
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-08-10 13:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on
using a shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any
reason why the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold
until we get a government that they know truly represents the majority
of UK citizens?
Yes, of course there is. Article 50 states otherwise.
--
Evremonde
tim...
2019-08-10 14:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on using a
shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any reason why
the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold until we get a
government that they know truly represents the majority of UK citizens?
an extension has to be unilaterally agreed - by both parties

tim
Pamela
2019-08-11 00:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on
using a shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any
reason why the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold
until we get a government that they know truly represents the majority
of UK citizens?
an extension has to be unilaterally agreed - by both parties
tim
So does the exit.

tim...
2019-08-10 14:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on using a
shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU,
do you mean in parliament

or in a GE

tim
Yellow
2019-08-10 14:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 13:49:14 +0100 Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on using
a shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any reason
why the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold until we
get a government that they know truly represents the majority of UK
citizens?
Oh! Yes please. :-)

And I'll get the popcorn.
tim...
2019-08-10 14:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass
retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
can't be done like that anymore

There either has to be a lost VoC or a vote of the whole house to have one

Can't see the majority or Tories backing their leader in this plan, even
leavers want a cleaner solution

tim
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 17:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?

Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20% compared
with the 40% it achieved in the last general election, going to risk one
by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is certain to lose a large
number of seats?

Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current position
of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit small, is very
unlikely to be replicated or even approached?

Don't deceive yourself. The polls are what matter, nothing else. And
they don't look at all favourable at present for either Labour or the
Conservatives.

So, do tell us your scenario and the rationale for it. We could do with
a laugh.
tim...
2019-08-10 13:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing retrospective,
undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government isn't
going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to be a new
one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill woman whose
name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that entails a motion of
no confidence being passed, and that has to be proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40% of
the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the polls.
That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would suffer a
corresponding loss of influence and power if they were unfortunate enough
to win on no confidence and force an election. So, for all their bluster
about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all from their point of
view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover up
a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd attract
even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems, the SNP and
the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and split each
other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence,
Yep

he's the flaw in the Tory rebels plan

They need Corbyn to set the ball rolling

and as he wants to leave

why would he?

tim


tim
tim...
2019-08-10 13:46:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
Oh I'm sure that on November 1st a new government could go to the EU and say

please pretend that we didn't leave on Oct 30th

the point is

will they say "yes"

we have no control at all over that

tim
Loading...