RugbyRebels

fivepointer wrote:If the document really is the worst case scenario, then the Govt should be able to also put out its base line assumptions.

Further, if Johnson really didnt lie to the Queen about the reason for prorogation of Parliament he can supply a sworn statement to that effect for the Supreme Court next week.

Both should be completely straightforward, shouldnt they?

Digby wrote:Bernard Jenkin was on the radio earlier saying the role of speaker was to defend the minority interest in parliament, presumably on the basis the government normally enjoys a majority, thus in this instance the speaker should be protecting the executive as the minority from parliament. Which is one way to look at it, I can't say it had occurred to me to consider it that way before, and I'm not minded to think other than the speaker is there to allow parliament to express a view, whatever that might be.

Puja wrote:It's a weird thing really, cause the government's lawyers aren't even trying to argue that a 35 day prorogation was a measured and sensible requirement for a Queen's speech or that it wasn't just a cynical attempt to close down scrutiny. Not even a figleaf claim that it's got nothing to do with Brexit. Their whole case is based around the idea that, even if he has mislead the Queen and asked for prorogation under false pretences, the judicial branch doesn't have the authority to rule that that is wrong.

It's a shame the electorate as a whole isn't cleverer/better informed, cause that really should be a career-ending choice of argument.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:Bercows role has been very dubious at times, but I do believe that parliament needs to keep the executive to account and he has enabled that to happen. This is the biggest issue of the day and I’m more than happy that rules get bent to allow appropriate oversight.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:It's a weird thing really, cause the government's lawyers aren't even trying to argue that a 35 day prorogation was a measured and sensible requirement for a Queen's speech or that it wasn't just a cynical attempt to close down scrutiny. Not even a figleaf claim that it's got nothing to do with Brexit. Their whole case is based around the idea that, even if he has mislead the Queen and asked for prorogation under false pretences, the judicial branch doesn't have the authority to rule that that is wrong.

It's a shame the electorate as a whole isn't cleverer/better informed, cause that really should be a career-ending choice of argument.

Puja

In other news Boris is apparently going to increase the size of the negotiating team back to what it was before he had a cull. It looks like the idea of a no deal has panicked the DUP into giving some ground and maybe a deal can be reached. I expect it will largely be the same as the May deal.

I sense a u turn on the horizon for our die in the ditch PM as he realises that he has misread this one.

The trade bill has been dropped – and now MPs have no way to stop bad deals after Brexit

Boris Johnson’s controversial decision to prorogue parliament did many things, but at its most basic level the break from ordinary parliamentary business simply means that an old legislative session comes to an end and a new one begins. The government decides which unfinished bills it wants to keep and reintroduces them in the new parliamentary session. The rest are simply dropped.

The trade bill, once considered one of the most important pieces of Brexit legislation, is one such bill to have been abandoned.

It is always unusual for a government to deliberately drop legislation – why introduce something you don’t intend to pass? – but the case of the trade bill, in particular, should concern us all. Its death means MPs now won’t get a say on our post-Brexit trade deals. Politicians in both houses of parliament worked to amend the bill over a period of two years. The amendment gave MPs a guaranteed vote on post-Brexit trade agreements, such as any deal with Donald Trump.

Believe it or not, without the amendment proposed in that bill the UK’s system of trade deal ratification doesn’t give MPs any meaningful or guaranteed say over the country's trade agreements. So as things stand, after Brexit we will revert to a World War I convention called the "Ponsonby rule" for ratifying international deals. This convention severely limits the role of MPs; it was created to deal with secret defence treaties, long before trade deals were as globally significant as they are now.


Article continues... 

fivepointer wrote:Both should be completely straightforward, shouldnt they?

Digby wrote:Not sure what I think about the Lib Dems going with a general election pledge to simply scrap article 50, I get the Tories could decide to have a referendum before a general election and this is a reaction to that, and a political move that heaps pressure on Corbyn when Corbyn has so many splinters up his arse he'll be struggling to move, nonetheless it doesn't feel quite right. I've never felt queasy about voting Lib Dem before, I've felt like it's yet another vote going nowhere, and I suspect the Tories hold on to Sutton Coldfield almost whatever, but even if this does end up being smart politics from Jo Swinson I don't exactly approve.

Digby wrote:Not sure what I think about the Lib Dems going with a general election pledge to simply scrap article 50, I get the Tories could decide to have a referendum before a general election and this is a reaction to that, and a political move that heaps pressure on Corbyn when Corbyn has so many splinters up his arse he'll be struggling to move, nonetheless it doesn't feel quite right. I've never felt queasy about voting Lib Dem before, I've felt like it's yet another vote going nowhere, and I suspect the Tories hold on to Sutton Coldfield almost whatever, but even if this does end up being smart politics from Jo Swinson I don't exactly approve.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Not sure what I think about the Lib Dems going with a general election pledge to simply scrap article 50, I get the Tories could decide to have a referendum before a general election and this is a reaction to that, and a political move that heaps pressure on Corbyn when Corbyn has so many splinters up his arse he'll be struggling to move, nonetheless it doesn't feel quite right. I've never felt queasy about voting Lib Dem before, I've felt like it's yet another vote going nowhere, and I suspect the Tories hold on to Sutton Coldfield almost whatever, but even if this does end up being smart politics from Jo Swinson I don't exactly approve.

It's a stunt. Even if there were some miracle and the Lib Dems were to become the largest party, they would still be short of a majority, so they'd have to deal anyway - it's a promise that they know they don't have to keep and which allows them to cement their position as The Remain Party in the face of Labour shifting that way.

I keep thinking that I will sign up to help the Lib Dems in the next election - the Conservative MP in my area is pointless (hasn't spoken in Parliament in over a year, has never voted against the party line in her whole career, does very little in the constituency) and, with the Conservative party expelling the moderates and going hard right, this feels like it could be one of the most important elections in my lifetime. However, they keep talking my out of it by sending me literature badmouthing Labour and the Greens and giving off the impression of being unwilling to work with anyone. I'm not a Liberal true believer or a zealot - I'd be voting for and helping them out of expediency (and our shitty electoral system) - but they need people like me on their side to get anywhere and their pamphlets are just alienating.

Puja

fivepointer wrote:

Digby wrote:Not sure what I think about the Lib Dems going with a general election pledge to simply scrap article 50, I get the Tories could decide to have a referendum before a general election and this is a reaction to that, and a political move that heaps pressure on Corbyn when Corbyn has so many splinters up his arse he'll be struggling to move, nonetheless it doesn't feel quite right. I've never felt queasy about voting Lib Dem before, I've felt like it's yet another vote going nowhere, and I suspect the Tories hold on to Sutton Coldfield almost whatever, but even if this does end up being smart politics from Jo Swinson I don't exactly approve.

To be fair to the LD's they have argued consistently against Brexit. Theirs is a straightforward and honest position.

Politically I think it would be a difficult thing just to revoke, but pushing the line that the only way to kill off Brexit is to abandon the enterprise might be a strong vote winner.

fivepointer wrote:

Digby wrote:Not sure what I think about the Lib Dems going with a general election pledge to simply scrap article 50, I get the Tories could decide to have a referendum before a general election and this is a reaction to that, and a political move that heaps pressure on Corbyn when Corbyn has so many splinters up his arse he'll be struggling to move, nonetheless it doesn't feel quite right. I've never felt queasy about voting Lib Dem before, I've felt like it's yet another vote going nowhere, and I suspect the Tories hold on to Sutton Coldfield almost whatever, but even if this does end up being smart politics from Jo Swinson I don't exactly approve.

To be fair to the LD's they have argued consistently against Brexit. Theirs is a straightforward and honest position.

Politically I think it would be a difficult thing just to revoke, but pushing the line that the only way to kill off Brexit is to abandon the enterprise might be a strong vote winner.

Digby wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Digby wrote:Not sure what I think about the Lib Dems going with a general election pledge to simply scrap article 50, I get the Tories could decide to have a referendum before a general election and this is a reaction to that, and a political move that heaps pressure on Corbyn when Corbyn has so many splinters up his arse he'll be struggling to move, nonetheless it doesn't feel quite right. I've never felt queasy about voting Lib Dem before, I've felt like it's yet another vote going nowhere, and I suspect the Tories hold on to Sutton Coldfield almost whatever, but even if this does end up being smart politics from Jo Swinson I don't exactly approve.

To be fair to the LD's they have argued consistently against Brexit. Theirs is a straightforward and honest position.

Politically I think it would be a difficult thing just to revoke, but pushing the line that the only way to kill off Brexit is to abandon the enterprise might be a strong vote winner.

They have argued that, and they've long asked for a people's vote which the government has refused to entertain (even though many leavers now saying no once said a 2nd referendum would be just the way to go). So I understand it, it just leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable, and even if they were by some strange confluence of events able to deliver on the pledge it probably doesn't end the debate, and we'll just see more of Farage and the Brexit Party (before Nigel moves on to bringing back hanging and guns)

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't agree with Swinson's proposal, but it's defensible:
1) If the LibDems win the election (which is not going to happen, especially under FPTP) then they can claim a mandate for immediately revoking A50,
2) If they end up in a coalition of some sort (which is entirely possible... in fact they could do as soon as parliament resumes), they will agree whatever compromise they can, probably a 2nd referendum.
And it is a clear policy, and might well help their popularity.

However, the big, long-term problem with moving straight to revocation is that it will empower Farage and/or the new Brexit-flavoured Tory party for years to come. We will never hear the end of it.

Labour policy makes more sense - try to get a better deal (a softer one) and ask the people in a 2nd referendum - and is more defensible, democratically (and in the long-run, a 2nd referendum (whatever the result) takes the wind out of Farage's sails).
But Labour policy is harder to argue* and seems to be damaging them in the polls.


*But this is especially the case if your presentation is simply poor, as in the recent BBC Question Time.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't agree with Swinson's proposal, but it's defensible:
1) If the LibDems win the election (which is not going to happen, especially under FPTP) then they can claim a mandate for immediately revoking A50,
2) If they end up in a coalition of some sort (which is entirely possible... in fact they could do as soon as parliament resumes), they will agree whatever compromise they can, probably a 2nd referendum.
And it is a clear policy, and might well help their popularity.

However, the big, long-term problem with moving straight to revocation is that it will empower Farage and/or the new Brexit-flavoured Tory party for years to come. We will never hear the end of it.

Labour policy makes more sense - try to get a better deal (a softer one) and ask the people in a 2nd referendum - and is more defensible, democratically (and in the long-run, a 2nd referendum (whatever the result) takes the wind out of Farage's sails).
But Labour policy is harder to argue* and seems to be damaging them in the polls.


*But this is especially the case if your presentation is simply poor, as in the recent BBC Question Time.

Sandydragon wrote:If only Labour had a leader who was deemed to be trustworthy. They would be like ahead in the present shambles, you would even fancy Ed Milliband to be doing well.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:If only Labour had a leader who was deemed to be trustworthy. They would be like ahead in the present shambles, you would even fancy Ed Milliband to be doing well.

The tragedy is Corbyn's view on Brexit. He could be as much a socialist as he is without being a (man with no opinion in the matter/closet Brexiteer)*. If he'd been even a luke-warm remainer Labour would be riding much higher in the polls.

*Delete as appropriate