PM Boris forms a government

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Indeed, the legislators taking on the role of the executive. What’s the point of the whole sorry mess. They should all resign they’re an embarrassment, and the fact they don’t have the necessary appendages to have an election. Non of them have any credibility.

seconded . . all those in favour say 'aye'

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

I don't see the point of having a PM if the house can take control at any time

That's because Prime Ministers are never elected except as MPs. Those elected as MPs can vote. This is the checks and balances we have in the HoP. On top this of course we have the House of Lords. Even countries like the US with directly-elected presidents don't necessarily have absolute control of their Houses.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Indeed, the legislators taking on the role of the executive. What’s the point of the whole sorry mess. They should all resign they’re an embarrassment, and the fact they don’t have the necessary appendages to have an election. Non of them have any credibility.

why would opposition fall for a blatant tory trap so he could do a no deal Brexit when house are totally against no deal

Originally Posted by Pierre

Out of interest, as I honestly don’t know. What is the status of the upper house.

We have remainer House of Commons, how so the lords?

I would have thought the same, as the lords are even more on the gravey train than the commons, but less egos.

The Lords are very remainy because they are drawn disproportionately from the political and business elites who tend to like the EU. Tory Lords are in a minority, as well, but that’s of only passing relevance in these strange times.

The workings of the Lords are sufficiently different that it doesn’t always come down to who has a majority for one thing or another. I imagine that’s why Cameron and May never thought it important enough to create enough Tory peers to redress the imbalance, despite having had 9 years and the absolute power to do so (power to advise HM, who always assents).

It is much more difficult to change the way in which the Lords works in order to fast-track a bill, in the way it was done in the Commons today. The business motion that was put down in order to try to achieve it is subject to the delaying tactics that it seeks to set aside. Those tactics don’t require the support of a majority of members, they just need a core of sufficiently motivated members to collaborate on the production and prosecution of oodles of amendments, which is what they’re doing right now, and also why their lordships have been seen arriving at Westminster with sleeping bags today.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's the EU that isn't remotely prepared to budge on anything

They've not been offered this miracle solution by BoJo yet to consider. And the team that was lined up to them have been mostly laid off.

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:47 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what else is the highlighted bit referring to? Especially the at the end. You are clearly suggesting that the unemployment figures won't rise to "remotely near 7%", because the figures will be fiddled(ie " they decide to move the goalposts").

I'd be intrigued to understand. I'm guessing the Carth has is that he feels zero hours contracts may be hiding true employment figures. That's not a statement against Brexit or the current government, more the methodology, globally accepted or otherwise.

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

why would opposition fall for a blatant tory trap so he could do a no deal Brexit when house are totally against no deal

Yeas, even Jezza is not that stupid. And Blair did warn him too.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That's because Prime Ministers are never elected except as MPs. Those elected as MPs can vote. This is the checks and balances we have in the HoP. On top this of course we have the House of Lords. Even countries like the US with directly-elected presidents don't necessarily have absolute control of their Houses.

That my friend is bollocks

Within the House of Commons we have the Executive (the Government), and the legislators (everyone else).

If the legislators are not happy with the Executive then they call a motion of “no confidence” and either replace the Executive or call for an election.

What they don’t do is take the place of the Executive, on selective motions, which is exactly what they have done.

Our Parliamentary Processes have been ripped up and thrown out, and may never be the same again.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

why would opposition fall for a blatant tory trap so he could do a no deal Brexit when house are totally against no deal

Because, they are going against convention. They should call a motion of no confidence. If they win it fine, the government falls.

If they lose it, then let the government govern.

Originally Posted by Dave42

why would opposition fall for a blatant tory trap so he could do a no deal Brexit when house are totally against no deal

Because the secondary trap is the political price Corbyn will now pay when there eventually is an election (and make no mistake there is going to be one before the end of the year). The SNP is already sharpening its knives up here, where Labour is in a very precarious position, haemorrhaging its unionist vote to the Tories while working class Clydesiders and Dundonians have long abandoned them for the cod-leftism of the nats. There are plenty of places in the north of England also, where Labour’s attempt to derail Brexit and then avoid facing the electorate will go down like a cup of cold sick.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They've not been offered this miracle solution by BoJo yet to consider. And the team that was lined up to them have been mostly laid off.

I thought you kept saying the EU were not interested in renegotiating?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'd be intrigued to understand. I'm guessing the Carth has is that he feels zero hours contracts may be hiding true employment figures. That's not a statement against Brexit or the current government, more the methodology, globally accepted or otherwise.

Sort of, the '7% rise' in unemployment would be due to loss of jobs, but I'd guess at least 50% of those who lose a job will find work through agencies (zero hour stuff) on probably 2 days a week . . and would therefore be then classed as employed again . . thus reducing that 7% figure by quite a bit

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That my friend is bollocks

Within the House of Commons we have the Executive (the Government), and the legislators (everyone else).

If the legislators are not happy with the Executive then they call a motion of “no confidence” and either replace the Executive or call for an election.

What they don’t do is take the place of the Executive, on selective motions, which is exactly what they have done.

Our Parliamentary Processes have been ripped up and thrown out, and may never be the same again.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------



Because, they are going against convention. They should call a motion of no confidence. If they win it fine, the government falls.

If they lose it, then let the government govern.

they making sure no deal cant happen on 31st October and not falling for a trap then will be a election when bill passed into law Johnson knows trap was only way he could get a no deal

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They've not been offered this miracle solution by BoJo yet to consider. And the team that was lined up to them have been mostly laid off.

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:47 ----------


I'd be intrigued to understand. I'm guessing the Carth has is that he feels zero hours contracts may be hiding true employment figures. That's not a statement against Brexit or the current government, more the methodology, globally accepted or otherwise.

So the EU haven't offered they own solution to their own conjured up problem. Then again absolutely nobody else has, apart from remaining in the EU. They created the notion of the backstop.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Dave42

they making sure no deal cant happen on 31st October and not falling for a trap then will be a election when bill passed into law Johnson knows trap was only way he could get a no deal

By going against all previous conventions, which as an unwritten constitution, it all we have to go on.

They’ve stepped over the line.

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

If I was BoJo, given how this has come about, I would just flat out refuse to approach the EU for an extension.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Dave42

they making sure no deal cant happen on 31st October

You can kick the can farther down the road as many times as you like, but ultimately there has to be an end to it. Three options will be available IMO

1) The EU will eventually decide to negotiate a deal to satisfy both parties (global recession looming? )

2) We will leave without a deal

3) Article 50 will be revoked

Two of the above will not have a happy ending

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That my friend is bollocks

Within the House of Commons we have the Executive (the Government), and the legislators (everyone else).

If the legislators are not happy with the Executive then they call a motion of “no confidence” and either replace the Executive or call for an election.

What they don’t do is take the place of the Executive, on selective motions, which is exactly what they have done.

Our Parliamentary Processes have been ripped up and thrown out, and may never be the same again.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------



Because, they are going against convention. They should call a motion of no confidence. If they win it fine, the government falls.

If they lose it, then let the government govern.

Your post manages to tangle itself up in contradictions. "What they don’t do is take the place of the Executive, on selective motions, which is exactly what they have done." So, which is it? Either you think they're taking the place of the legislature or you don't think they are.

I am focusing on the current reality, not what may have been the case before BoJo was PM and rule books were thrown out of the window.

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

You can kick the can farther down the road as many times as you like, but ultimately there has to be an end to it. Three options will be available IMO

1) The EU will eventually decide to negotiate a deal to satisfy both parties (global recession looming? )

2) We will leave without a deal

3) Article 50 will be revoked

Two of the above will not have a happy ending

If you kick the tin can down the road long enough, these magical technological solutions for the 400-mile Irish border may be invented. I'm surprised that one of the 17.4million has not done so yet.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you kick the tin can down the road long enough, these magical technological solutions for the 400-mile Irish border may be invented. I'm surprised that one of the 17.4million has not done so yet.

I did, a couple of pages back

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Your post manages to tangle itself up in contradictions. "What they don’t do is take the place of the Executive, on selective motions, which is exactly what they have done." So, which is it? Either you think they're taking the place of the legislature or you don't think they are.

No it doesn’t, you are just having a hard time understanding. I thought I was quite clear.

If Parliament has an issue with the Executive and believes they are pursuing and action that is reckless or may harm the nation.

What they should do is call for a motion of “ no confidence” and either replace the government with another one that commands support from the house or trigger an election.

What they shouldn’t do is take the place of the Executive by controlling the order paper of the house to control the house on selective matters and push through legislation, which is what they have done.

They have gone against the conventions of our unwritten constitution.

Is that clear enough for you? Or should I draw some pictures too.