Re: Brexit (New).
 

Don't put any money on it.;)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

yes 286 no's 344 majority 58

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Well l was not that far away Dave.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Point to where I denied any of that, what I was actually pointing out was the people responsible are now trying to deny any culpability and other people are happy to let them

Re: Brexit (New).
 

OK bored now.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

This is amazing stuff.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

So thus every one of the Governments votes so far has been defeated.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Not disagreeing with anyone, just having a mini rant. ;)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Sky News Breaking
‏
Verified account

@SkyNewsBreak
5m
5 minutes ago


More
European Council president Donald Tusk says there will be meeting of EU leaders on Wednesday 10 April two days before Theresa May has to set out the next steps for Brexit

Re: Brexit (New).
 

How parties voted on Brexit agreement.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

So, long extension, Soft Brexit with possible confirmatory public vote ahead. GE also on the table now.

I saw Steve Brine on TV just now and now he is released from the shackles of Government, he is saying that TM should have reached out for a consensus in Parliament 2 years ago. Ouch ..

I have previously thought that JC is just a clueless clown but maybe I was wrong? He is nearer a GE now more than ever and when this happens, who do the disenfranchised centre ground voters choose? A Tory Party led by a Hard Brexiter like Johnson/Raab or Labour party promising a Soft brexit or No Brexit at all. I think that many will hold their nose and vote Labour.

The Tory brand is so damaged now: so many will not forgive them. This includes the hard core Leavers who will feel betrayed and the tribal Tory voters who cannot believe that their party have come to this.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Interesting that if every Tory MP had backed their own leader the vote would have passed.

I truly wish I understood what the ERG strategy is here. Do they still think No Deal is on?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

This from Heather Stewart.

And this from Sam Coates.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Will the EU27 go for a long extension, knowing that the Euro-elections will become an absolute pantomime? There has to be a serious risk of contagion across European electorates with Eurosceptic parties everywhere using the situation to accuse the EU and ruling elites of bad faith and collusion. Regards of what Parliament votes for (or continues to self-indulgently vote against) on Monday, is it now possible that the 27 heads of government will decide we are a boil to be lanced and just let the clock run down to a No Deal on 12 April?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

There are all sorts of rumours going around and where it ends no one knows.

1/ No Deal on 12 April
2/ A Long Extension which means there will be EU elections
3/ No Brexit
4/ General Election

Re: Brexit (New).
 

1. Possible, somewhat more likely than this morning.
2. Possible, but politically explosive. The elections would become a proxy GE and referendum rolled into one. It’s a pantomime nobody in HMG or the EU wants.
3. Vastly unlikely. The long term consequences would be severe. Try not to forget that Brexit was voted for by a majority of UK voters, and more people than have ever supported a single party or proposition in any vote ever held in the UK. That’s a lot of people to pyzz off.
4. Possible, but not before May steps down. She knows she’s screwed up, badly, and won’t face the electorate over it.

4. would also require 2.

Option 5 is that Parliament re-runs its indicative votes process on Monday, then HMG puts a binary choice before Parliament: choose either the deal or the most popular of the other options.

Almost all the movement has been among Tory hard liners, who might just be finally persuaded to take the deal over either retaining a customs union or holding another referendum. Very few Tories supported either of those options earlier this week. This afternoon’s results show that if May can hold on to all the support the deal has among Labour and independent MPs, she need only win over her own benches. The DUP’s votes would not be needed.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Yes l forgot that Parliament could re-run its indicative votes process on Monday but obviously will it be any different from last time when no played out on all the indicative votes.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

To be fair you've lasted longer than most, I've been sick to the back teeth of it for about a year now, plus of course all the time the country is going further down the toilet as our "leaders" suffer complete brexit paralysis, sod all the people getting stabbed, the nhs, housing crisis, social care crisis, crumbling infrastructure, etc etc etc it's all about poxy brexit, we couldn't even have a proper budget

Only a mini, go on treat yourself, go full blown :rant:

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I believe that is the only way Brexit, as envisaged by the vast majority at the time of the referendum, could be delivered.

A rogue member of the 27 veto-ing any extension.

It's just the matter of a £40 billion or whatever, hole in the accounts that will ensure this sorry mess continues.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Faisal Islam
‏
Verified account

@faisalislam
6m
6 minutes ago


More
Minister tells me of a meeting of ministers with the PM in Downing St now following the third defeat of her Withdrawal Agreement... not about standing down but significant, nonetheless.


Nicholas Watt
‏


@nicholaswatt
Follow
Follow @nicholaswatt

More
Nigel Dodds tells me the UK should stay in the EU if that was only way to preserve NI’s place in UK. ‘I would stay in the European Union and remain rather than risk Northern Ireland’s position. That’s how strongly I feel about the union.’

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Faisal Islam on Sky News.
‏

Re: Brexit (New).
 

parliament wont allow that expect general election if that happens

Re: Brexit (New).
 

For the No Deal fans:

The European Union Thinks The UK Is Left With Two Choices After The Last 24 Hours Of Brexit Chaos

This was noted that in event of a no-deal exit, the EU will have three pre-conditions before starting trade talk:

When we arrive in the fabled uplands, they may not be sunlit after all?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Yes she should got right for the MP's gut and take us down the no deal route. I think at this stage enough talk and voting has been done and we need to leave with no deal seen as none of them can reach a deal.

As a 2nd option the EU should make the call.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

The most surprising thing about this for me was discovering that Buzzfeed does something other than listicles.

It isn't surprising that the EU's agenda post-No Deal would be to try to reconstruct as much of the WA as possible. That's fair enough and suits us also. There are things in the WA that are desirable for the UK.

What I think this most usefully highlights is the extent to which the final mode of our departure may be determined not by gutless British parliamentarians who won't enact the will of their constituents, but by 27 foreign heads of Government who have grown thoroughly sick of same.

So the question is, will they grant a further extension, or will they cash in? Will they allow us to remain as a festering sore in EU affairs for another 2-3 years or will they decide enough is enough and insist that 12 April is No Deal Day?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Personality vanity trumps logic I think. They want to be morally pure on the issue of Brexit, completely clean and uncompromising in their faith, even if that means losing it all together. No different to the people on the left that happily lose election after election so long as they never compromise their idealistic socialism.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

The SNP will never back it, they want the impossible.

They want to be independant and remain in the EU, but Jimmy Krankie can't get it in to her bimbo brasin if she leaves the UK, she leaves the EU on that day.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

She understands it perfectly well and is using it to her advantage. The SNP's main goal is not to remain in the EU but to have an Independent Scotland, the SNP itself is not as pro-EU as people think.

I think the best case scenario for them is the UK remains after a second referendum that the SNP is widely seen in Scotland to have brought about. It gives her an argument for a second Scottish Independence vote and whilst leaving the EU could help them the turmoil of it all would make Scots think twice about going though it all again.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

If only.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Dominic Grieve loses confidence vote held by Beaconsfield Tories.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...nsfield-tories

Re: Brexit (New).
 

A bit of context...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...vote-fjr5c8pbx Funnily enough, in the Beaconsfield constituency, Leave polled 49% and Remain polled 51%, so Grieve could be said to be representing his electorate...

Re: Brexit (New).
 

The Conservative Party has always done well when it represents itself as a broad church but it is increasingly becoming a narrow, intolerant sect and once down that road it becomes increasingly unelectable IMO and personally l can see a big split coming down the road..

l don't agree with some of Dominic Grieve views but once you start to treat a politician who is well respected across all parties then you are on a downhill path.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

The first of many ?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who has discussed Brexit online so much that I routinely get “may” autocorrected to “May”. :D

I also get word completion suggestions from Br(exit) Pa(rliament) Bac(kstop) and refe(rendums). :spin:

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Re: Brexit (New).
 

And the person behind the campaign to deselect him was the UKIP candidate who stood against him last time. It’s becoming like Labour where the local parties are making sure the MP represents them first ahead of the wider constituency.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Oh perhaps his constituency have changed their minds and now support leave, surely they are entitled to change their minds ? (Which is typical Remainer mantra but only when it suits :rolleyes: ).

Dominic Grieve wanted a ‘people’s vote’ and he got one, in the form of his own constituency, which have voted him out. A well deserved outcome for an individual that betrayed his own country to become an activist for the corrupted European Union.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

To be strictly accurate, there can only be a best estimate for Beaconsfield, as the referendum result area was different to the constituency area.

South Bucks voted Leave by just over 500 votes, where Wycombe voted Remain, but only West Wycombe is in the Beaconsfield constituency.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Hyperbolic language doesn’t help either side...

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Bollocks - Nothing was exaggerated. He was ousted for shunting his manifesto commitments, which was honouring a democratic result, so quite rightly, the association has had enough and in another form of democracy, he was ousted, he got what he deserved.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Brought down by a peoples vote eh.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

My local social club appears to have more members than the Conservatives in
Grieve’s constituency.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Not only are there not many of them, they seem as extreme as Labour's equivalent activists. When last polled, 76% would choose no deal over remain.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Well if anyone is affronted by the process, and result, they can always join.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Not sure it’s practical to move house to do so.

It does show that the Conservatives are in a precarious position. Infiltration by ex-UKIP and others further afield on the spectrum could massively change the direction of the party, much like Momentum did to Labour.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Yes, Grieve wasn't one of the Conservatives' best performers. About time they replaced him as he does seem to have lost the plot.

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

Obviously quite an intelligent electorate, then.

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:50 ----------

Brexit is a divisive issue for all parties, frankly.

If you really think that Labour are in a better position than the Conservatives on the Brexit question, you are not paying attention.

---------- Post added at 21:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:54 ----------

Dominic Grieve, I'm afraid, is one of those MPs who has disrupted the process to the extent that it has caused the degree of public dissatisfaction with the way in which our road to Brexit has been blocked.

I have absolutely no sympathy with him. Call himself a democrat? Pull the other one. The nation voted to LEAVE.

Let's jolly well leave, then. And if they won't agree to leaving with a deal, then let's leave with a no deal. It's not really rocket science.

[Pauses while Project Fear protagonists sit up in protest]

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Only if you mistakenly equate membership with popularity of a party, or even membership with the popularity of it’s local candidate.

If either of the above were true Labour would run away with elections.

You’ve ignored the option to extend. Did you miss the last two weeks?

Polling indicates the public would vote to remain. So MPs are doing a grand job in that respect.

The Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday have some bad news for the Tories.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/st...222511110?s=21

Re: Brexit (New).
 

More flawed rubbish. The polls indicated a Remain result prior to Referendum in 2016 and look how that turned out for you. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit (New).
 

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

That’s not actually true. Plenty showed a leave win and most were within the margin of error.

June 9th 2016 onwards, the final two weeks, leave tracked above remain in most polls.

Post-March 29th polling will be interesting. It was a psychologically important date for so long.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Don’t lie. Poll after poll showed a Solid Remain win.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Are you accusing the Financial Times of maintaining an inaccurate list of polling data? That’s quite astonishing really. The media might have given more prominence to polls they prefer, but there were certainly polls out there from recognised organisations that showed a leave lead.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

No they did not. Stop lying. The pollsters got it wrong in 2016 for foolishly leaning for a Remain win. I remember them well. I couldn’t give a shit what the FT says.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

You can’t reasonably accuse me of lying when I present a record maintained by the Financiial Times.

Anyone with the time or inclination could go back and find releases from the respective organisations and test the veracity of the figures.

Yes there were, albeit less, remain polls in the last two weeks but that’s the nature of the statistical margin of error projecting such a close result.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

You've provided a link and people can make up their own minds on this. ;)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

That record is clearly wrong. I don’t need to google. I have a memory. I remembered the polling detail well. I remember the claims of Remain making progress via the polls in the run up to the referendum.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Under the cover of the events on Friday, Vote Leave dropped its challenge to the court case against it for electoral offences. A lot of media time was previously given to its denials but less is being given to its acceptance.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...toral-offences

Will be interesting to see if this is quickly forgotten or if it comes back to bite BoJo in the event of a leadership challenge.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

So you can’t actually prove any of the figures are wrong?

I accept you will have a recollection based on whatever media you were consuming at the time but the efforts the FT went to in order to create the list I did be personally stunned that, if after almost three years, none of the polling companies have asked them to amend their record.

---------- Post added at 23:56 ---------- Previous post was at 23:56 ----------

It’ll be back. This is going to be a key part of kicking it back to the people. The danger is making the same mistake as last time and losing again if there’s no compelling reasons to stay.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Talking of polls; an interesting development here or is it just a blip? Could this reduce the likelihood of a general election?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oint-lead.html

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Enough of the “prove it” bullshit. I know what the polls said, they had Remain consistently in the lead. How wrong they were and are again. That’s why they’re unreliable. Only one poll matters and that is the official one from 2016.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It’ll be interesting to see if it’s replicated across a broader sample of polls. If so it’ll make a general election less likely, which in turn makes a second referendum more likely to break the impasse.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Unlikely as it may seem, I think you're probably both in broad agreement. Everything I read said that Remain was ahead. It was only the private polls conducted whilst poling was underway that actually said otherwise.
However, nowhere was Remain ahead by a substantial amount, so the figure quoted in the FT (48% Remain, 46% Leave) does not seem out of place.
There's actually a very good article in the FT which seems to be free "How accurate are the Brexit polls?" which covers this topic. https://www.ft.com/content/6a63c2ca-...d-26294ad519fc

Re: Brexit (New).
 

How anyone can believe a poll of (on average) 2000 people reflects the entire nation is beyond me.

As Mick says, the only poll that matters is the one with the cross in the box.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Arguably the only one that matters is the next Brexit referendum. :D

Nobody is saying opinion polling is perfect or has 100% accuracy to a population of 66 million people - it has a statistical margin of error - for 2000 people this is plus or minus 2 per cent

In the case of polling on a binary choice the obvious difference is the use of a “don’t know” option that isn’t on the ballot on the day.

In the case of a General Election the polls taken now could vary from an election because the campaign itself brings in greater rules on neutrality in broadcast media coverage and unforeseen topics/issues can change voting intention in a seven week campaign.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

So you agree a waste of time then.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It’s not a waste of time if you understand what you are looking at is a snapshot within a range and not a promise of the next general election result.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

l will will be very surprised if she carries out her threat to call a General Election given the increasingly bitter internecine civil war within the government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47763034

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tion-plan.html

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. :D

Re: Brexit (New).
 

And they certainly don't want a new leader in some of the loyal Tory heartlands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ory-heartlands

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I don't care what they do as long as they finally make a decision instead of fannying around trying not to come to a consensus.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

As per the Radio 4 news yesterday, if Parliament takes over and passes legislation, the Government has a right to ask the Queen to refuse to give the bill royal assent.

This has not been done since 1707.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Something she should have done to start with.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Hope this clarifies thing - statistical methodology explained.

http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org...opinion-polls/

With a sample of 2,000, the poll will be within 2% 19 times out of 20.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

It was also in the Times today -can’t see her agreeing to do that.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Agreed. Would the following order have worked better?
1. Come to a consensus
2. Devise a plan.
3. Don't invoke Article 50 until EU is happy to can Withdrawal Agreement as the Withdrawal Agreement weakens our negotiating position.
4. Then, finally invoke Article 50.

Appreciate the above would take time and would disappoint those who believed it was an easy process. However, it could result in a better deal and swifter Brexit.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Until it becomes proven fact atheory remains a theory.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

..

Re: Brexit (New).
 

That's not what theory means in this context.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I think the new polls are starting to validate this possible future. I said right at the beginning of this journey: Vote Brexit, Get Corbyn and this may yet play out.

The Tory (and to a lesser extent Labour) brand is so damaged that anything is possible now. Cameron may go down in history as not only as the man who inflicted Brexit on the country but as the man who broke his party in the process. Not a bad day's work!

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Great explanation.
There's a temptation to take polls like a tip for a horse race. If they don't give me the right tip for the 3:30 at Haydock then they're wrong!
The reality as you show is that things are more nuanced.

---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

I remember you saying that about Brexit and it's looking more likely now than three years ago!
I think when it comes to parties the analysis has shown that the gap exists for a party that is more interventionist in the economy but less liberal on crime. At the moment, you can't seem to get both together.

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 ----------

Exactly. They're not trying to prove a proposition one way or the other.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It’s a proven methodology, not a theory...

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Yes, but then Mr Speaker prevented the government holding Meaningful Vote 3 on the basis of a precedent set in 1604. What’s sauce for the goose and all that...

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Bringing the Queen into it would be a disaster and a huge mistake for the Monarchy and given how the Queen has handled her role I suspect she knows that and will stay well clear.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Unfortunately we have a largly remain parliment, how seem to be going against the leavers.

WE need a massive deselection of MPs

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------


The trouble is the reaminers can't accept the result, and still come out with the same what have you got to be scared of with a second referendum.

---------- Post added at 16:44 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------


The Queen has no power over parliment thanks to Charles the first and Oliver Cromwell days.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

l think the vast majority have accepted the result but what no one likes is the complete omnishambles and political infighting civil war we have had in these past 30 months.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

This has a good explanation of why it’s unlikely to happen.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...mpression=true



---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Erskine May makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920, so whilst it was set in 1604 (as were a lot of Parliament’s rules), it’s been used since then.

Absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention but to general compliance with it.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I like how you talk of disasters and yet thinking that ignoring a Democratic decision, undertaken in a Legitimate Democratic process, one of the largest ever in the UK, would not be a disaster ??? :rolleyes:

So you think it's perfectly reasonable for Parliament to steal powers of the Executive, setting it's own business motions of the day in Parliament, something only the Government of the day should only be able to do.

It would not be a mistake at all. It is her right to refuse Assent to any Bill on the advice of her Ministers. She has the power of a veto. Royal Assent any "Rogue" Bill, it is the last "Nuclear" option the Government of the day has.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I think that as with March 29th being on the statute book you are clutching at straws if you think we are going down that road. This is all becoming really predictable. The timing of vote leave ending their appeal over illegal activities only gives more impetus to our Remain Parliament and the People’s Vote campaign.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It does no such thing.

And if you bother to look - I said at the time, unless the Executive puts legislation forward, the date of leaving won't change - the government did, in the form of an SI, so you are wrong, as usual.

And your prediction skills, leave a lot to be desired given parliament has rejected a Second Referendum, several times now. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I’m not wrong. It was always going to happen, and a much easier process than many hypothesised. Assuming politicians will do absolutely nothing isn’t really the optimal starting point for any stance.

It only has to back a second referendum once. If you read back I said it’d have to be the “last possible option”. Plenty of time yet.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Yes you are wrong - parliament has rejected a Second Referendum several times!!!

The Parliamentary numbers are just not there!

What part of this do you not understand ? :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Utter rubbish - I repeat - there isn't the numbers for a Second Referendum in parliament! I know you want one, but want, does not get. You lost the vote in 2016, we should honour the first referendum and leave the EU.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Yes, it certainly seems to be one of the more popular options that Parliament is voting on. If we rule out an election then the choices narrow. I'm still inclined to think it won't happen.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

What you mean to say is the numbers aren’t there now. Which I one hundred per cent accept.

However it’s the next extension that will facilitate the time for enough to change their minds. It’ll be interesting to see what Parliament comes up with tomorrow. Hopefully nothing, it all plays into the line they will spin about it being a last resort.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit (New).
 

So what is the point of Royal Assent being required, if not to block a backdoor overthrowing of a democratic vote?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

There’s no point, it’s entirely procedural and would spark further constitutional crisis. VoNC plus new Government gets Parliament past this anyway, so it’d be extremely pointless.

Re: Brexit
 

I’m on holiday in the northeast, on the road into Newcastle upon Tyne someone has sprayed “Traitor May” and “Vote Stolen” on a couple of road signs. I guess there’s a few disgruntled Brexiteers around here. :D

---------- Post added at 21:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

I’m being ever so slightly tongue in cheek. ;)

As Her Maj always follows convention, were the government be minded to try to get her to withhold assent, they would do so by asking the Palace, “if the Prime Minister were to request this, what would Her Majesty be minded to do?” - to which the answer would be, “Her Majesty would be minded to tell you where to get off,” and the result would be that no such request was made and neither the convention of parliament’s right to make law nor the convention of Minsterial advice would be broken.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

as well as the ultimate irony of an unelected individual being active in the decisions regarding a national referendum ...

Re: Brexit
 

I've always thought that the Royal Assent was meant to be a final safeguard. IE That no component was complete control.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I am not actually entirely sure why it still exists but the practice is now that it's automatic. I assume it exists because the Crown is still part of Parliament, along with the Lords, and so it's consent is also required at the final stage and it's also from where Parliament draws it's sovereignty since we are still technically a Constitutional monarchy. It's likely something to do with that. A quick Google explains what it is but not why....

Someone else probably knows the proper legal and historical reasons as to why the process is still there. However considering it's been there for centuries I don't think it was to block a democratic vote. Parliament is the expression of the will of the people in this country. The concept of there being a requirement for the Monarchy to block the will of Parliament in the name of the people is alien to what Parliament is there for, at least in theory.

Not to mention there is all sorts of weirdness here and our system is not used too. The idea of Parliament passing laws without the support of the Government is clearly unusual. You would assume the Government would fall before that could be possible after all. The Government is meant to have the support of Parliament, the Queen is meant to take advice from Ministers because of that support. We effectively have a Zombie government at the moment.