PM Boris forms a government

[Gavin78]

Seems to me remainers are more bothered that leaving will affect how much benefits they will get inc MP's seen as they sponge off the state.

Wish I could revoke part of my tax that is paid to the traitors not standing by my vote.

Like I have said before if they can do this with a referendum vote then I'm sure they will now try this crap with an election.

---------- Post added at 22:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

They didn't do this when it came to the iraq war even thoough there was enough protesting against it.

they've all gone power mad, even Corbyn himself said he wants to make johnson look a fool by making him ask the EU for an extension. it's not about the people but Ego's.

[Carth]

Is it only the PM that can request another extension?

Can the PM be forced into doing so . . and how?

Originally Posted by Carth

Is it only the PM that can request another extension?

Can the PM be forced into doing so . . and how?

The bill currently passing through parliament is intended to create a law forcing the Prime Minister to request an extension.

Boris, the PM, is the head of government and therefore has the UK’s seat at the European Council where any such request would be considered.

Originally Posted by Chris

As per usual, the commentariat makes the mistake of trying to attack Boris by taking his words super-literally, rather than considering how his words affect his chosen audience. His opponents choose to caricature him as a British Donald Trump, yet they seem serially unable to learn the one obvious lesson arising from that. Enough people like what he says well enough to keep supporting him.

But by all means, keep on pointing and sniggering about factual inaccuracies in rhetoric that ultimately make precisely no difference whatsoever to the outcome of anything at all.

Yes, I was so foolish as to believe what Boris states is going to happen to be factual (btw, love the phrase "super-literally"; Is it the truth? Is it a lie? It’s Superliterally!") - you appear to be stating we shouldn’t believe what he says, just like it...

On a separate, yet related note, Boris is setting new records, and going down (ooo-errr, missus) in history -

He became the first PM to lost their first vote in office since 1783
- Blair suffered 4 defeats in 10 years.
- Thatcher suffered 4 in 11 years.
- Cameron 10 times in 6 years.
- May 33 times in 2 years.
- Johnson 4 times in 2 DAYS.

All this WINNING¡¡¡

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

You fail to grasp that you described something in the past as both happwning and not happening at the same time. Or to fully apprecoate that conventions went out of the window when BoJo became PM. 21 MPs sacked. Unheard of but this is the new norm.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

The bill currently passing through parliament is intended to create a law forcing the Prime Minister to request an extension.

Boris, the PM, is the head of government and therefore has the UK’s seat at the European Council where any such request would be considered.

But as, has been deliciously suggested, as a member of the council he could also veto it?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You fail to grasp that you described something in the past as both happwning and not happening at the same time. Or to fully apprecoate that conventions went out of the window when BoJo became PM. 21 MPs sacked. Unheard of but this is the new norm.

It's called a cabinet reshuffle. Happens all the time.

Originally Posted by Pierre

But as, has been deliciously suggested, as a member of the council he could also veto it?

Since Boris stopped British attendance to the Council from the 1st of September, it would be difficult...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9072956.html

Finland will decide how Britain votes on new EU laws and regulations, thanks to Boris Johnson’s decision to pull British diplomats out of meetings in Brussels early.

The prime minister announced earlier this month that the UK would stop participating in EU meetings, in an attempt to signal to Brexiteers that he was serious about leaving the bloc at the end of October.

But the decision leaves the UK government with a reduced influence over new EU legislation, which will affect the UK for some time to come.

Because the UK is still entitled to a vote, the decision on how it should be cast will be delegated by power of attorney to Finland, which is the current rotating chair of the European Council...

...The UK will stop attending council meetings from 1 September.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You fail to grasp that you described something in the past as both happwning and not happening at the same time.

No I didn’t. You obviously still don’t understand what I said, i’ll Get the crayons out.

Or to fully apprecoate that conventions went out of the window when BoJo became PM

How so?

21 MPs sacked. Unheard of but this is the new norm.

Not relevant, also they haven’t been sacked.......yet, only the electorate can do that.

---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:51 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's called a cabinet reshuffle. Happens all the time.

Wasn’t even that, the whip was withdrawn, effectively making them independents, that’s all.

---------- Post added at 22:55 ---------- Previous post was at 22:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Since Boris stopped British attendance to the Council from the 1st of September, it would be difficult...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9072956.html

Fair enough. Like I said earlier, if I was him i’d Just stay at home in my pajamas and eat toast until November 1st.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, I was so foolish as to believe what Boris states is going to happen to be factual (btw, love the phrase "super-literally"; Is it the truth? Is it a lie? It’s Superliterally!") - you appear to be stating we shouldn’t believe what he says, just like it...

On a separate, yet related note, Boris is setting new records, and going down (ooo-errr, missus) in history -

He became the first PM to lost their first vote in office since 1783
- Blair suffered 4 defeats in 10 years.
- Thatcher suffered 4 in 11 years.
- Cameron 10 times in 6 years.
- May 33 times in 2 years.
- Johnson 4 times in 2 DAYS.

All this WINNING¡¡¡

Sigh. Really? Come on. You’ve been close enough to the machinery behind all of this to know better. Even if you hadn’t, I thought your contributions here might be at least a little above the level of Twitter factoids.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Chris

The bill currently passing through parliament is intended to create a law forcing the Prime Minister to request an extension.

Oh right, I see now thanks

But taking it further, if Boris says get lost and then resigns on . . ooh lets say Oct 24th, who would then be the one to do the deed . . Deputy PM or doesn't it work like that?

Originally Posted by Carth

Oh right, I see now thanks

But taking it further, if Boris says get lost and then resigns on . . ooh lets say Oct 24th, who would then be the one to do the deed . . Deputy PM or doesn't it work like that?

When a PM resigns, they do so face to face with the Queen, and advise her maj who to appoint in their place, and that person is invited to the palace within an hour or so. So whoever replaced Boris would be in post almost immediately and they would have the responsibility to go to Brussels.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Chris

When a PM resigns, they do so face to face with the Queen, and advise her maj who to appoint in their place, and that person is invited to the palace within an hour or so. So whoever replaced Boris would be in post almost immediately and they would have the responsibility to go to Brussels.

screwed if you do, screwed if you don't then . . . and another £39 billion into the EU to keep them afloat

[Pierre]

Just reading up on options.

To force an election BoJo could take the unprecedented step to call a No Confidence motion on himself and then direct all his MPs to abstain.

[nomadking]

The backstop is meant to be about regulatory alignment. Well guess what, even without the backstop, day 1 of Brexit would still have UK wide regulatory alignment. Even imports from non-EU countries will still have the same EU compliance.

ECJ rules on those regulations in the EU, the UK rules on them in the UK. Nothing wrong in that. If and when, any regulations diverge then it becomes more complicated. But it is still no different to current EU countries trading with each other. Eg recent case of company in the Czech Republic(?) selling non-EU compliant goods, or several EU countries selling horse meat masquerading as beef. Any future divergence in regulatory alignment is not likely to be that great in nature and will take time.

So what exactly is the EUs problem?