RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Plan A: BJ requests the extension, owns it, parliament has another go pushing for a referendum, followed by GE, whilst BJ continues being humiliated every day until a GE around the first anniversary of the first Brexit day.
Plan B: BJ requests extension, owns it, loses VONC, GNU sets up a referendum, followed by a GE fought with some thought on domestic politicies.
Plan C: BJ doesn't request extension, criminal proceedings start, VONC happens, PM Corbyn requests an extension and calls a GE, BJ goes to jail.

Plan A just grinds BJ further into the dust, and makes removes any way out for him.
Plan B requires PM Clarke/Harman.
Plan C hands a political victory to Corbyn, and rules out a referendum until after any GE.

They'll still be horse-trading, though Sturgeon sticking her oar into Blackford's pond really, really doesn't help

Plan D:BJ doesn't request extension but attempts to use Civil Contingencies act to suspend the Benn act, this chews up time in court, say it fails, BJ prorogues parliament till Nov 1st, court action to force him to extend takes place, BJ resigns (perhaps halfway through court case), Parliament attempts to form GNU... does it succeed (is there a candidate with majority support?)?, does it have time left before 31 Oct at this point??

Is the GNU the same as forming a minority govt, just with a friendlier title?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Hopefully this kind of thing will focus minds and unite the opposition.

I know it would look better for Labour if Johnson were forced to ask for the extension, but I don't think he's going to write that letter - he will try a succession of delaying stunts like the one above (including another prorogation), and if all else fails, resign at the last minute. He needs to delay things for 12 days at most.

On reflection, there is some logic to Labour holding back on a VONC at this point:
1)The VONC could fail - it's not at all guaranteed that all the 21 ex-tories would vote against BJ. This would be extremely embarrassing for Corbyn.
2) If it succeeds there's no guarantee that there is enough unity to find an acceptable (caretaker) PM. This would be disaster and could deliver us to No Deal.
3) Even if it all succeeds, and the GNU extends article 50, there will presumably be a general election (although - as I would prefer - a second referendum could happen at this point). If and when there is a GE, BJ will be able to claim he was within inches of the most amazing deal with the EU (he can claim all kinds of things at this point) when parliament stopped him. This could play very well with him in the election. And if he fights the election on a Brexit ticket (whether or not Brexit has been stopped by a 2nd referendum), this could be very popular. If he wins the election (even with Farage's support) he could (probably would?) make No Deal happen.

Which Tyler wrote:Frogface doesnt want BJ to get all the "incitement to violence" credit...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24286.html

Police have launched an investigation after Nigel Farage vowed to “take the knife to the pen pushers in Whitehall” after Brexit.

The Brexit Party leader made the comments to around 500 supporters last week after criticising civil servants at a rally in Newport, South Wales.

Article continues

it remains of interest how many of Farage, JRM and so on do we need to kill as a society to end Brexit? If we're being told civil disobedience (which I do like as a phrase) gets you what you want it's there to build on

Banquo wrote:Is the GNU the same as forming a minority govt, just with a friendlier title?

Not if the coalition has a majority in Parliament.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Is the GNU the same as forming a minority govt, just with a friendlier title?

Not if the coalition has a majority in Parliament.

so how does that work procedurally? Does 'x' go and ask the Queen if he/she can have a go (which was the question I meant to ask). I guess this is unprecedented in peace time?

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Frogface doesnt want BJ to get all the "incitement to violence" credit...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24286.html

Police have launched an investigation after Nigel Farage vowed to “take the knife to the pen pushers in Whitehall” after Brexit.

The Brexit Party leader made the comments to around 500 supporters last week after criticising civil servants at a rally in Newport, South Wales.

Article continues

it remains of interest how many of Farage, JRM and so on do we need to kill as a society to end Brexit? If we're being told civil disobedience (which I do like as a phrase) gets you what you want it's there to build on

I'd hope that's irony, given the state of political discourse. And I'd guess about 1.5m to kill it off if you were serious and it were a question worth answering.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Frogface doesnt want BJ to get all the "incitement to violence" credit...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24286.html

it remains of interest how many of Farage, JRM and so on do we need to kill as a society to end Brexit? If we're being told civil disobedience (which I do like as a phrase) gets you what you want it's there to build on

I'd hope that's irony, given the state of political discourse. And I'd guess about 1.5m to kill it off if you were serious and it were a question worth answering.

Yes and no. Arson another possibility, or indeed other types of violence. if our leaders want to state violence is the means to meet your ends it's an interesting call, and not one which will only skew one way

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

it remains of interest how many of Farage, JRM and so on do we need to kill as a society to end Brexit? If we're being told civil disobedience (which I do like as a phrase) gets you what you want it's there to build on

I'd hope that's irony, given the state of political discourse. And I'd guess about 1.5m to kill it off if you were serious and it were a question worth answering.

Yes and no. Arson another possibility, or indeed other types of violence. if our leaders want to state violence is the means to meet your ends it's an interesting call, and not one which will only skew one way

You are an odd one and that's for sure, step away from the Snowballs. I think dear old nasty Nige was guilty of malapropism or summat, and I don't really think any of our leaders, as shitty as they are, have genuinely been calling for violence as solutions.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Is the GNU the same as forming a minority govt, just with a friendlier title?

Not if the coalition has a majority in Parliament.

so how does that work procedurally? Does 'x' go and ask the Queen if he/she can have a go (which was the question I meant to ask). I guess this is unprecedented in peace time?

I'm no expert, but I would assume this is essentially the same as the recent Tory-LibDem coalition - if they can muster a majority in parliament.
If they can't quite muster a majority - but are more numerous than the Tories (or the Tories don't want to form a government) - I think they can still go to the Queen.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Not if the coalition has a majority in Parliament.

so how does that work procedurally? Does 'x' go and ask the Queen if he/she can have a go (which was the question I meant to ask). I guess this is unprecedented in peace time?

I'm no expert, but I would assume this is essentially the same as the recent Tory-LibDem coalition - if they can muster a majority in parliament.
If they can't quite muster a majority - but are more numerous than the Tories (or the Tories don't want to form a government) - I think they can still go to the Queen.

....but isn't this a 'temporary' situation rather than a ( 5 year) sustainable govt?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'd hope that's irony, given the state of political discourse. And I'd guess about 1.5m to kill it off if you were serious and it were a question worth answering.

Yes and no. Arson another possibility, or indeed other types of violence. if our leaders want to state violence is the means to meet your ends it's an interesting call, and not one which will only skew one way

You are an odd one and that's for sure, step away from the Snowballs.

Oh without doubt. But that aside I think it's spectacularly stupid to suggest violence is a reason to go with one side of the Brexit argument, they might be under the impression it helps their side of the argument, but to really push this idea could result in some miserable outcomes, for all sides.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: so how does that work procedurally? Does 'x' go and ask the Queen if he/she can have a go (which was the question I meant to ask). I guess this is unprecedented in peace time?

I'm no expert, but I would assume this is essentially the same as the recent Tory-LibDem coalition - if they can muster a majority in parliament.
If they can't quite muster a majority - but are more numerous than the Tories (or the Tories don't want to form a government) - I think they can still go to the Queen.

....but isn't this a 'temporary' situation rather than a ( 5 year) sustainable govt?

Again, I'm no expert, but I would assume this is procedurally the same as any other government.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I'm no expert, but I would assume this is essentially the same as the recent Tory-LibDem coalition - if they can muster a majority in parliament.
If they can't quite muster a majority - but are more numerous than the Tories (or the Tories don't want to form a government) - I think they can still go to the Queen.

....but isn't this a 'temporary' situation rather than a ( 5 year) sustainable govt?

Again, I'm no expert, but I would assume this is procedurally the same as any other government.

it's the same as any government, but the constituent parts are only agreeing to hold it together for a very limited period and for very specific purpose , they'd try to do very little outside Brexit, and cross their fingers for no major incident(s)

I don’t think a temporary GNU would be any different to any other government, the terms of the fixed term parliament act would still apply so if the coalition partners wanted to go to the country they would need a 2/3 winning vote.

I suppose the key question is whether there is a second referendum or not. Getting a government together to get an extension is probably the easy bit, I don’t think there is much agreement on what to do thereafter.

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t think a temporary GNU would be any different to any other government, the terms of the fixed term parliament act would still apply so if the coalition partners wanted to go to the country they would need a 2/3 winning vote.

I suppose the key question is whether there is a second referendum or not. Getting a government together to get an extension is probably the easy bit, I don’t think there is much agreement on what to do thereafter.

getting the government together if Jeremy Corbyn insists on leading the GNU will be a hard sell to rebel Tory and Lib Dem MPs. one might almost suspect Corbyn sees this as a chance to get Brexit without being tagged for it.

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t think a temporary GNU would be any different to any other government, the terms of the fixed term parliament act would still apply so if the coalition partners wanted to go to the country they would need a 2/3 winning vote.

I suppose the key question is whether there is a second referendum or not. Getting a government together to get an extension is probably the easy bit, I don’t think there is much agreement on what to do thereafter.

Not necessarily - an election could be got from any lost confidence vote if no other group could gain the confidence of the house within 14 days.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t think a temporary GNU would be any different to any other government, the terms of the fixed term parliament act would still apply so if the coalition partners wanted to go to the country they would need a 2/3 winning vote.

I suppose the key question is whether there is a second referendum or not. Getting a government together to get an extension is probably the easy bit, I don’t think there is much agreement on what to do thereafter.

Not necessarily - an election could be got from any lost confidence vote if no other group could gain the confidence of the house within 14 days.

Puja

Good point. But we both agree that a temporary government is no different to a proper one- it continues until it tries to get an election agreed or loses a VONC.

My gut feeling is that a temporarily government of a few weeks only doesn’t really change the situation that much. So we stay in the EU until January (assuming the EU agrees). We have an election. There is a very realistic chance that the Conservatives can win a majority or at least be the largest party. So we are back to square one.

In my opinion, a temporary government needs to organise a referendum. The country can’t be much more divided than it is now, put the May deal to the country vs no deal and let’s see what the response is. Or even the May deal against remain, although that would be a harder sell I think.

Sandydragon wrote:My gut feeling is that a temporarily government of a few weeks only doesn’t really change the situation that much. So we stay in the EU until January (assuming the EU agrees). We have an election. There is a very realistic chance that the Conservatives can win a majority or at least be the largest party. So we are back to square one.

In my opinion, a temporary government needs to organise a referendum. The country can’t be much more divided than it is now, put the May deal to the country vs no deal and let’s see what the response is. Or even the May deal against remain, although that would be a harder sell I think.

Or all 3 with 2nd preference.

My feeling then is that Remain would win the 1st round, perhaps without 50%, and that May's deal may just about sneak over 50% with 2nd preference.

But that May's deal would come third on 1st preference by some distance.

I’d prefer a multiple preference vote, but we don’t do referendums like that so it’s unlikely to happen.

Sandydragon wrote:I’d prefer a multiple preference vote, but we don’t do referendums like that so it’s unlikely to happen.

To be fair - we don't do enough referenda to have a standard way of doing them.
We can't even strike them down for breaking what election rules we do have; or be consistent about who's allowed to vote in them.

To be fair, we can’t even be clear on what the fuck people are voting for, which surely must be the starting point of any election.

Herein lies the problem of referenda and their relationship with a representative democracy.

Banquo wrote:Herein lies the problem of referenda and their relationship with a representative democracy.

They have their place, but the choices must be really clear and really they work better with a binary choice.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:Herein lies the problem of referenda and their relationship with a representative democracy.

They have their place, but the choices must be really clear and really they work better with a binary choice.

Do they? For large complex decisions? My point being....the relationship with a representative democracy. I think they are a terrible idea for big issues.