As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] Their Worstest Hour

15960626465100

Posts

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Solar, you know as well as I do that Corbyn doesn't want Remain. He wants Brexit, and to be in power. He will, at best, make a tepid show of going against the former, and only if it gets him the latter.
    This is really, IMO, all about your personal animosity toward "the betrayers".

    No its not, and your idea of the Labour Party position on Brexit as "Corbyn is a secret Leaver so they all are" is oversimplified.

    If you can't even do me the good grace of taking my position on face value don't bother arguing with it, because I'm not about to sit here and protest that I really mean what I say.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Solar wrote: »
    Solar, you know as well as I do that Corbyn doesn't want Remain. He wants Brexit, and to be in power. He will, at best, make a tepid show of going against the former, and only if it gets him the latter.
    This is really, IMO, all about your personal animosity toward "the betrayers".

    No its not, and your idea of the Labour Party position on Brexit as "Corbyn is a secret Leaver so they all are" is oversimplified.

    My idea is that as long as Corbyn is in charge of the party, it literally does not matter what anyone or everyone else in the party thinks. This has been shown time and again. Per Pterry, he is the man and he has the vote.

    EDIT from bottom of last page: Goumindong, that was very informative, thank you.

    Commander Zoom on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Corbyn isn't a secret leaver? He's an out front leaver.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    He campaigned to Remain (yes he did, even if some say he could have campaigned more) and has put Remain on the 2nd ref. That's good enough for me. Currently Labour policy is "2nd ref where Remain wins? Revoke"

    I understand that it is frustrating that he's not out and out a Remainer, revoke it immediately etc. As a Remainer I agree. But also we did have a Referendum, stupidly yes, but we did, and Remain fucking lost. We've been crying out for the government to try to reconcile the two national camps because they've failed to even attempt to do so, and Corbyn has tried though absolutely Labour's Brexit policy has been a strategic mistake that cost votes, I agree there. I don't think Leaving is a good idea at all. But I do think that we are all going to have to live together and therefore we need to at least in some way try to build a consensus out of what we have, because it's absolutely tearing the country's discourse in half. And as far as I can see, none of the Party Policies are succeeding at that but only one Party has actually tried to do it.

    Solar on
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    I just want someone to stand up and say that it's idiotic to have decided such a massively important issue by less than a supermajority, and therefore the referendum is illegitimate and annulled.

    Would be a pipe dream, of course, but but it seems fairly self evident to me that such a massive societal change should have needed far more than 50%+1, and therefore I really don't see why you can't ignore the result.

    It's also true that a portion of the people who voted to leave voted for something that isn't happening and can never happen, and would have voted Remain if they'd known it couldn't happen the way they were told it could.

  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies drinking coffee in the mountain cabinRegistered User regular
    edited September 2019
    I don't know that Corbyn was trying to create harmony between leavers and remainers, or that doing so would be a good idea, or that anyone has been crying out for the government to do so.

    Separately, I don't think, if we for the sake of argument take your explanation as correct and exculpatory, that it applies to any of the BS about a jobs first brexit, or "a customs union that isn't the customs union"

    Powerpuppies on
    sig.gif
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    He campaigned to Remain (yes he did, even if some say he could have campaigned more) and has put Remain on the 2nd ref.
    https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/

    Table 2.1

    Corbyn made fewer media appearances than Ian Duncan Smith, and a quarter of Cameron's total.

    He objectively did not put any effort in. Gordon Brown managed half his appearances as an ex-PM who hadn't been in focus for years.

    Trying to play down his comparative absence in the referendum to pretend he's palatable as an option for Remainers today is a joke, especially since every time Labour has come out saying it might back another referendum with Remain on it, it seems to have involved Tom Watson primarily.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    He campaigned to Remain (yes he did, even if some say he could have campaigned more) and has put Remain on the 2nd ref.
    https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/

    Table 2.1

    Corbyn made fewer media appearances than Ian Duncan Smith, and a quarter of Cameron's total.

    He objectively did not put any effort in. Gordon Brown managed half his appearances as an ex-PM who hadn't been in focus for years.

    Trying to play down his comparative absence in the referendum to pretend he's palatable as an option for Remainers today is a joke, especially since every time Labour has come out saying it might back another referendum with Remain on it, it seems to have involved Tom Watson primarily.

    His lack of support for Remain was one of the core complaints that lead to the leadership challenge not long after the Brexit vote.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I mean if Corbyn is a remain leader it sure seems lost on most people in this thread and the voting electorate in general. Perception is reality and Corbyn comes off as someone that wants unicorn brexit.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    I just want someone to stand up and say that it's idiotic to have decided such a massively important issue by less than a supermajority, and therefore the referendum is illegitimate and annulled.

    Would be a pipe dream, of course, but but it seems fairly self evident to me that such a massive societal change should have needed far more than 50%+1, and therefore I really don't see why you can't ignore the result.

    It's also true that a portion of the people who voted to leave voted for something that isn't happening and can never happen, and would have voted Remain if they'd known it couldn't happen the way they were told it could.

    you can’t ignore the result and declare it null and void while also having a rule of law unfortunately

    there’s no legal mechanism by which it can be ignored even though it is massively and incontrovertibly stupid

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    you can’t ignore the result and declare it null and void while also having a rule of law unfortunately

    there’s no legal mechanism by which it can be ignored even though it is massively and incontrovertibly stupid

    sure you can

    what do you think "non-binding" means?

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    I just want someone to stand up and say that it's idiotic to have decided such a massively important issue by less than a supermajority, and therefore the referendum is illegitimate and annulled.

    Would be a pipe dream, of course, but but it seems fairly self evident to me that such a massive societal change should have needed far more than 50%+1, and therefore I really don't see why you can't ignore the result.

    It's also true that a portion of the people who voted to leave voted for something that isn't happening and can never happen, and would have voted Remain if they'd known it couldn't happen the way they were told it could.

    you can’t ignore the result and declare it null and void while also having a rule of law unfortunately

    there’s no legal mechanism by which it can be ignored even though it is massively and incontrovertibly stupid

    Actually the law creating the referendum explicitly made it not legally binding. Up until Article 50 was invoked you could have pretended it didn't exist. It would just have looked awful politically.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    I just want someone to stand up and say that it's idiotic to have decided such a massively important issue by less than a supermajority, and therefore the referendum is illegitimate and annulled.

    Would be a pipe dream, of course, but but it seems fairly self evident to me that such a massive societal change should have needed far more than 50%+1, and therefore I really don't see why you can't ignore the result.

    It's also true that a portion of the people who voted to leave voted for something that isn't happening and can never happen, and would have voted Remain if they'd known it couldn't happen the way they were told it could.

    you can’t ignore the result and declare it null and void while also having a rule of law unfortunately

    there’s no legal mechanism by which it can be ignored even though it is massively and incontrovertibly stupid

    Actually the law creating the referendum explicitly made it not legally binding. Up until Article 50 was invoked you could have pretended it didn't exist. It would just have looked awful politically.

    And of course, if it had been legally binding, then the illegal methods used by the leave campaign would have meant it would haven been overturned and the government forbidden from acting on it

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Hell, I've been considering that a smart move for a Labour leadership that actually wanted to Remain would be to try and form a Lab/Lib Dem coalition, kill Article 50 and then blame it all on the Lib Dems any time that comes up negatively, saying that they were the ones that made it a condition of the government.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean if Corbyn is a remain leader it sure seems lost on most people in this thread and the voting electorate in general. Perception is reality and Corbyn comes off as someone that wants unicorn brexit.

    No, he wants Pegasus Brexit.

  • JazzJazz Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    I just want someone to stand up and say that it's idiotic to have decided such a massively important issue by less than a supermajority, and therefore the referendum is illegitimate and annulled.

    Would be a pipe dream, of course, but but it seems fairly self evident to me that such a massive societal change should have needed far more than 50%+1, and therefore I really don't see why you can't ignore the result.

    It's also true that a portion of the people who voted to leave voted for something that isn't happening and can never happen, and would have voted Remain if they'd known it couldn't happen the way they were told it could.

    you can’t ignore the result and declare it null and void while also having a rule of law unfortunately

    there’s no legal mechanism by which it can be ignored even though it is massively and incontrovertibly stupid

    Actually the law creating the referendum explicitly made it not legally binding. Up until Article 50 was invoked you could have pretended it didn't exist. It would just have looked awful politically.

    And of course, if it had been legally binding, then the illegal methods used by the leave campaign would have meant it would haven been overturned and the government forbidden from acting on it

    The High Court ruling stated as much; as it wasn't legally binding, they actually couldn't overturn it. If it had been, they would have.

    Jazz on
  • BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    I think that's fundamentally the stupidest thing about the last four years. The public advised that we do a stupid vague thing and the immediate response was well now, I guess we have to jump off that cliff. It's nice if we get a parachute but we must jump. It has been commanded.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Perdurabo wrote: »
    I feel like the Lib Dems position of not agreeing to Corbyn being the head of the GNU because he's untrustworthy on Brexit is more defensible than Corbyn's demand he's the leader for that brief time because...he wants it? Remember the whole point was to just demand the extension then dissolve parliament? Apart from the optics of being PM for a few days, why was that so important?

    "He couldn't be trusted to be PM for a week." is a pretty significant blow in the run up to an election.

    Edit: And it seems pretty out there to suggest that if made PM of a temporary unity government Corbyn would... what, not ask for an extension and try to crash out with no deal? That seems baseless

    Nah. The fact that hes holding it up over literally anyone else from his party means he is untrustworthy. If he wasnt he would have put forth a labour backbencher as a first choice.

    Otherwise he has nothing to gain from putting himself forward for a GNU. He doesnt get policy he wants as he has to disolve the govt. He doesnt get credibility or power as he has to disolve the govt. Well unless he would use the office to push policy... which is to say unless he was untrustworthy.

    And its not like he gets out of it by holding his stance. He would look better if he stepped aside for a labor backbencher. He would look magnanamous. He would look like someone willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of the nation and the will of his party. By not stepping aside he walks into every attack about his untrustworthiness!

    What i am saying is that you cannot trust corbyn

    wbBv3fj.png
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    So, ambivalent news:

    1. Unions sat down with Corbyn, and they're definitely sticking with that "We'll get a deal and then we'll have a referendum on the deal and campaign for...something, maybe Remain?" policy. Personally I think that's going to see large numbers of defections, especially in Lab/Lib marginals. But there we go.
    2. Latest couple of polls up on Britain Elects have the Tory lead down to 2-3 points, at around 28%. Depending on where they are, that puts them around 10-20 seats ahead of Labour, but not within striking distance of a majority. Amusingly(?), the BXP 13% gets them roughly zero seats, which would suggest a hung parliament or a Lab/Lib C&S deal.

    Fair warning, the preceding poll to those two was a Yougov one that showed a Conservative lead of +14. I'm going to say the polling is a bit volatile right now.

  • AgusalimAgusalim Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    He campaigned to Remain (yes he did, even if some say he could have campaigned more) and has put Remain on the 2nd ref.
    https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/

    Table 2.1

    Corbyn made fewer media appearances than Ian Duncan Smith, and a quarter of Cameron's total.

    He objectively did not put any effort in. Gordon Brown managed half his appearances as an ex-PM who hadn't been in focus for years.

    Trying to play down his comparative absence in the referendum to pretend he's palatable as an option for Remainers today is a joke, especially since every time Labour has come out saying it might back another referendum with Remain on it, it seems to have involved Tom Watson primarily.

    and yet the lib dems, who did not have a single member make enough media appearances to show up on that list, are a palatable option for remainers?

  • SharpyVIISharpyVII Registered User regular
    Agusalim wrote: »
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    He campaigned to Remain (yes he did, even if some say he could have campaigned more) and has put Remain on the 2nd ref.
    https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/

    Table 2.1

    Corbyn made fewer media appearances than Ian Duncan Smith, and a quarter of Cameron's total.

    He objectively did not put any effort in. Gordon Brown managed half his appearances as an ex-PM who hadn't been in focus for years.

    Trying to play down his comparative absence in the referendum to pretend he's palatable as an option for Remainers today is a joke, especially since every time Labour has come out saying it might back another referendum with Remain on it, it seems to have involved Tom Watson primarily.

    and yet the lib dems, who did not have a single member make enough media appearances to show up on that list, are a palatable option for remainers?

    Yes because currently they want to revoke article 50, the most unambiguous remain policy of all parties.

  • AgusalimAgusalim Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    SharpyVII wrote: »
    Agusalim wrote: »
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    He campaigned to Remain (yes he did, even if some say he could have campaigned more) and has put Remain on the 2nd ref.
    https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/

    Table 2.1

    Corbyn made fewer media appearances than Ian Duncan Smith, and a quarter of Cameron's total.

    He objectively did not put any effort in. Gordon Brown managed half his appearances as an ex-PM who hadn't been in focus for years.

    Trying to play down his comparative absence in the referendum to pretend he's palatable as an option for Remainers today is a joke, especially since every time Labour has come out saying it might back another referendum with Remain on it, it seems to have involved Tom Watson primarily.

    and yet the lib dems, who did not have a single member make enough media appearances to show up on that list, are a palatable option for remainers?

    Yes because currently they want to revoke article 50, the most unambiguous remain policy of all parties.

    we just established that you need to have made at least 124 media appearances during the campaign to be "palatable to remainers" and not a single lib dem managed even 15. and yet this somehow gives them a more solid remain track record than corbyn, who made more pro-remain media appearances than anyone except the pm and chancellor

    trying to put aside the sarcasm for a minute, fundamentally there is no serious route to remain that is not achieved primarily through the votes of labour mps in the hoc - this is an unavoidable consequence of the parliamentary maths. (corollary: any proposed remain strategy that does not involve getting labour onboard in one way or another is fundamentally unserious)

    the lib dems and the snp (let alone any plaid, greens, sdlp etc) cannot play any more than a supporting role in this strategy - likely a vital supporting role, but they simply do not have the numbers to be the big players in a brexit prevention strategy. the labour leader is elected by the membership, not the plp (this is why corbyn was able to ignore the plps vonc with literally no long-term consequences), and the membership is very solidly behind corbyn. hence any effective short-medium term anti-brexit strategy (i.e., at least up to the current exit date and likely up to whatever extension ends up being offered, touch wood) not only needs to have labour as the central player, it has to be a corbyn-led labour. however palatable or not you find corbyn, this is the reality of the situation, and trying to approach the situation as you wish it were rather than it actually is will blow up in your face

    i think corbyn has made many serious missteps in terms of brexit: the "7/10" comment did not have the effect it was intended to and has been an easy cudgel to beat him with, and whipping to trigger a50 without pressing for a firm strategy from the tories was also a gift to the gov (although do remember that even if lab had whipped to vote against, they could not have stopped it)

    nonetheless the suggestion that he ought to come out more firmly pro-remain than he does ignores the fact that there is a significant number of leave- and leave-leaning voters in the british electorate, certainly enough that it is not clear that remain would win a 2nd ref - and although the proportion of such voters within the labour electorate is smaller than the pop as a whole, it is still significant. this presents two problems:

    1) you cannot go all-out remain without losing this voting bloc, which will hurt your chances of getting a sufficiently many seats to actually deliver anything in the commons
    2) you are meant to represent all your party membership, not just the party membership of remainers

    a lot of remain armchair thinking that i see here seems to wish away the fact that actually there are still loads of people in britain who want to leave the eu, with varying levels of fervency. i dont think that to remain we need to win over every last bxp voter, but i do think that labour running full tilt in the opposite direction without at least offering a fig-leaf of plausible deniability (such as a renegotiated deal followed by a 2nd ref, to pluck an example out of thin air) would throw away a lot of potential votes from the squishier end of the brexit demos, almost certainly more than they would gain by going straight revoke

    Agusalim on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I believe the study isn't actually measuring appearances in events or campaigning, it's measuring the mentions those people got in press cuttings. There'll be a bias towards people the reader might have heard of, no full list of attendees or speakers and the possibility of the same event being mentioned more than once, thus artificially raising someone's appearances in the press cuttings even though the number of appearances in real life is the same.

    When Corbyn was being dragged by leftwing Remainers for not doing enough this study was waved about by the faithful as proof he appeared at 123 events or made 123 speeches. A high number! In fact this study is still being bandied about by shitrags like The Canary as though someone followed Corbyn with a pen and paper and made a tick every time he made a separate speech. But that's not what the study is measuring. It's measuring mentions in the press. Cameron didn't make 499 speeches or appear 499 times. In fact Corbyn went to a total of 10 rallies, and his most memorable TV appearance was when he said he was 7 out of 10 for the EU.

    Also one reason Jo Swinson and Vince Cable didn't make many Remain appearances is that neither were MPs at the time of the referendum, and the Lib Dems had about 9 MPs and almost no national profile at all, hence why news stories wouldn't bother mentioning them. The actual figure for their involvement in the Remain campaign is something I don't know, but this study isn't an accurate measure of the effort they might or might not have put in.

    Academic studies are great, but you need to make sure you know what they're measuring.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    The study is, if you want an analogy, as if someone went through the newspapers after the world cup and marked down how many times each player was mentioned in separate stories. Harry Kane would probably have come top with, let's say, 200 mentions. This did not mean he played in 200 games, it just means he got the most attention.

  • PerduraboPerdurabo Registered User regular
    Corbyn voted against the EEC in 1975, he opposed Maastricht in 1992, he opposed Lisbon in 2008, he backed a proposed referendum in 2011 to leave the EU. He was obviously pushed into a more pro-EU position than he actually held during the referendum, and it showed.

    On the day of the referendum result, he demanded article 50 was triggered straight away. He's mentioned leaving the single market will be useful as we could avoid state-aid legislation. He's since said that leaving the EU will stop migrants driving down wages.

    I suppose that's why the Lib Dems would be more palatable to remainers. They don't have any of this history. It's funny that the Lib Dems should carry the baggage of 2010 around their neck in perpetuity, but the opinions of Corbyn are just cast off as inconsequential.

    It seemed clear to me that the perceived optimal outcome for Corbyn and his team was for Brexit to happen and Labour are swept into power. All that was achieved in the last month in parliament was done by backbenchers, not Corbyn.

  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    LDs are more palatable to me because they're openly and consistently for remain. Corbyn has grudgingly admitted that he'll maybe support remain if he's forced to. To his credit he hasn't said he'll openly defy a law forcing him to do something, but it's not exactly a commitment I want to support.
    Labour policy as a whole figures that they just need to be slightly less for brexit than the tories, and they'll get everyone who's against it as well as the people who are for it but not at the cost of self-immolation.
    There are some voices calling to just stop it, but they get shouted down as much as possible as it's made clear that this isn't party policy.

    Case in point: Tom Watson calls for referendum ahead of election
    Labour must prioritise reversing Brexit through another referendum, over winning power in a general election, its deputy leader Tom Watson is to say.

    He will warn that a snap election before the end of the year may fail to resolve the current deadlock.

    Putting himself at odds with Jeremy Corbyn, he will say there is "no such thing as a good Brexit deal" and Labour must campaign unequivocally to remain.

    Mr Corbyn has promised a further referendum on Brexit.

    The Labour leader told the TUC conference on Tuesday that if Labour won the next election, it would offer a vote with a "credible Leave option" versus Remain.

    He met trade union leaders on Tuesday, who urged him to keep Leave on any ballot.

    Its election manifesto will promise to reach a better Brexit deal, but is not expected to commit to either Leave or Remain.

    Exactly what hypothetical referendum couldn't keep Leave on as an option?
    Do you wish to a) remain or b) this option intentionally left blank?

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • AgusalimAgusalim Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Perdurabo wrote: »
    Corbyn voted against the EEC in 1975, he opposed Maastricht in 1992, he opposed Lisbon in 2008, he backed a proposed referendum in 2011 to leave the EU. He was obviously pushed into a more pro-EU position than he actually held during the referendum, and it showed.

    On the day of the referendum result, he demanded article 50 was triggered straight away. He's mentioned leaving the single market will be useful as we could avoid state-aid legislation. He's since said that leaving the EU will stop migrants driving down wages.

    I suppose that's why the Lib Dems would be more palatable to remainers. They don't have any of this history. It's funny that the Lib Dems should carry the baggage of 2010 around their neck in perpetuity, but the opinions of Corbyn are just cast off as inconsequential.

    actions taken 9 years ago should be weighed more heavily than a vote 44 years ago, that is how both time and speech vs action work

    i mean consider the actions that we are talking about! the austerity that the lds helped enact while in coalition has literally killed 10s of thousands of people, possibly 100s of thousands. and furthermore the immiseration that this caused almost certainly led to a major chunk of the support for brexit in the first place! how much does a revoke policy that will never be enacted because they will never be a majority government make up for this?

    Agusalim on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Leaving the EU will have a bodycount as well. Less money for vital and already underfunded services means the Lib Dems are on the right side of the next thing to kill people indirectly.

  • AgusalimAgusalim Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    anyway on a chortling note that im sure we can all agree on, sajid javid is very happy with the decision to relax rules on foreign students remaining after finishing their degrees. what a fool the previous home secretary was for not doing anything about this

    Agusalim on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Watson's speech today comes on the heels of the official Labour policy being consistently wheeled out into the glare of public light for the first time and getting laughed at, because it is very silly. I am genuinely baffled by Labour thinking they can sell it on the doorstep, since it amounts to telling the voter they don't know which way Labour want things to go yet, but give them power and they'll find out.

    A second referendum now is much easier to understand and arguably more likely to result in a Remain result, which is what Labour are supposed to want, as right now people are thinking Remain is vs a no deal Brexit, rather than a soft Brexit.

    Labour could justifiably argue that there isn't a public appetite for a second referendum, but I would say a large part of that is that there have been very few political leaders making the case for one.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    So Parliament is still in session? Does the Speaker control the schedule then?

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I suspect they'll wait until the Supreme Court hears the appeal before doing anything.

  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    There'll be appeals, and appeals of appeals, and I doubt they'll reach a firm decision before the point where they'd have been prorogued anyway, so why not let it stand?

    I'm more interested in what consequences there will be for Boris performing an illegal act. I assume there's no chance of him facing jail time for this?

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I don't think it'll result in prosecution for it. In effect this is oversight of an action by the executive, so the remedy is for him to un-prorogue Parliament, not be slammed in chokey for it.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Not that I'd mind if he was

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Judging by rhetoric coming on other issues I could definitely see Boris trying to "nuh-uh" his way out of having to recall Parliament.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    According to a barrister (and director of the Good Law project) this essentially means parliament is no longer prorogued.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    It certainly gives Labour and the other opposition parties the opportunity to perform some eye-catching stunts until Johnson does recall Parliament. Johnson probably thinks he can run out the clock, though.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    According to the BBC the reaction from MPs opposed to the prorogue has been “Right! Holiday’s over. Back to work!”

This discussion has been closed.