PM Boris forms a government

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Who gives a flying.............

If we’re arguing over pork pies, we have surely jumped the bexit shark.

The accusation is that he was telling lies on the matter. That has been conclusively disproved,


Now if he had claimed that Thatcher was responsible for closing Corby Steelworks and the coal mines, then nothing would really have been mentioned, even though it's untrue(Corby closed under Callaghan). That's assuming the media thought the incorrect claims weren't worth mentioning, and it wasn't because it WAS actually Corbyn and Labour making those untrue claims.

I’m sure that made sense in your head...

[Carth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The accusation is that he was telling lies on the matter. That has been conclusively disproved,

oh well, it was fun while it lasted


any chance we can do the Red Bus one again?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I’m sure that made sense in your head...

Yes, but can we start having proper discussions about these things?

All this point scoring is childish and brings out the worst in everyone.

---------- Post added at 00:20 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

oh well, it was fun while it lasted


any chance we can do the Red Bus one again?

The red bus thing is really a rallying point for the remainers, who refuse to accept the explanation for that figure.

If anyone thinks that is a convincing argument they are puttong forward, fine. But Brexiteers, who understand what is going on here, will not be convinced by that silly argument of theirs. They clearly don't understand the difference between 'gross' and 'net' and the fact that Maggie's concession can be overturned.

They deserve pity rather than outrage, I think.

[nomadking]

From 2017

In the OBR’s February report there was a table, unnoticed at the time, which includes an OBR forecast on EU budget contributions up to 2021 based on Treasury information. They show the gross contribution soaring to £22.227 billion by 2021/22 – or £427 million per week. If, as Remainers and statisticians insist, we use only the net contribution – subtracting the UK rebate – then even that soars from £13.952 billion in 2016/7, to £17.405 billion in 2021/2. That is a massive 24.7% increase in 5 years…
But most importantly politically, even the net contribution of £17.405 billion works out at some £335 million per week in 2022. So even using the contested Remainer methodology, Boris would basically be right in four years if we don’t leave the EU…

The rebate has to be renewed with every budget. It hasn't been renewed. It has gone completely.
Link

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union’s budget chief Guenther Oettinger said on Friday Britain would lose its rebate even in the “pleasant but improbable” event of it staying in the bloc.

...
Any extension of the transition period, as suggested by Britain’s finance minister Philip Hammond on Friday, would raise the issue of the British rebate as it would coincide with the bloc entering the new budgetary period that could already be rebate-free.

If a business was always having to give you a 66% rebate, then you would assume they're overcharging you.


Germany

Breakdown of Germany's finances with the EU in 2017:

• Total EU spending in Germany: € 10.927 billion
• Total EU spending as % of German gross national income (GNI): 0.33 %
• Total German contribution to the EU budget: € 19.587 billion
• German contribution to the EU budget as % of its GNI: 0.59 %

UK

Breakdown of the UK's finances with the EU in 2017:

• Total EU spending in the UK: € 6.326 billion
• Total EU spending as % of the UK’s gross national income (GNI): 0.28%
• Total UK contribution to the EU budget: € 10.575 billion
• The UK’s Contribution to the EU budget as % of its GNI: 0.46%

Germany got a higher amount of EU funding as % of it's GNI. Germany 0.33%, UK 0.28%. Any money we get back is taken off the rebate, therefore at least 66% of the money has come from the UK in the first place, ie for every £3 of funding, £2 is knocked off the rebate and added to what we pay in. Factor that in and we actually get an even lower rate of EU funding. The UK contribution figure has the 66% rebate included, so without it, we will and have been expected to pay more as a % of GNI than Germany.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

From 2017
The rebate has to be renewed with every budget. It hasn't been renewed. It has gone completely.
Link

If a business was always having to give you a 66% rebate, then you would assume they're overcharging you.


Germany

UK
Germany got a higher amount of EU funding as % of it's GNI. Germany 0.33%, UK 0.28%. Any money we get back is taken off the rebate, therefore at least 66% of the money has come from the UK in the first place, ie for every £3 of funding, £2 is knocked off the rebate and added to what we pay in. Factor that in and we actually get an even lower rate of EU funding. The UK contribution figure has the 66% rebate included, so without it, we will and have been expected to pay more as a % of GNI than Germany.

You're really not going to get a good night's sleep pondering this all night ! You lost me at the link to 'order-order'....

Let's not try to turn this into a Brexit thread

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

You're really not going to get a good night's sleep pondering this all night ! You lost me at the link to 'order-order'....

The order-order info was lifted straight from a government report, "European Union Finances 2016: statement on the 2016 EU Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement"
Link to pdf
It's on page 19.
Isn't an official HM government report considered proof?



The issue was raised on the allegations of Boris lying.

[denphone]

Government expected to ask Queen to suspend parliament from mid-September.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...084061ab38dd7d

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...early-election

A Number 10 source told the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, that this would allow Boris Johnson’s new administration to hold a Queen’s Speech on 14 October. This will leave MPs with very little time to attempt to pass laws that could stop a no deal Brexit.

Well of course he will. The problem with messing with conventions is that when one party starts doing it, they lose the moral high ground and the right to squeal if the other party starts doing it too.

Government business takes precedence in the House of Commons because of a very long-standing standing order. Corbyn and his cabal have announced their intention to set that aside. Hardly surprising then that BoJo is considering using his power and influence to prevent that happening.

Incidentally, while this will be presented by the breathless left as an appalling abuse of power and an affront to parliament, and hang-on-I-thought-you-brexiteers-believed-in-parliamentary-sovereignty, Parliament should perhaps take a moment to reflect on the consequences of voting to settle a constitutional question via an exercise in direct democracy. Quite unlike the ordinary run of affairs, in which most MPs, most of the time, vote according to the manifestos on which they were elected, this time there is one single issue, decided in a referendum, that uniquely puts parliamentary sovereignty at loggerheads with the expressed will of the people. Parliament has called its own sovereignty into question and if it continues to set itself against the result of the referendum then that question will only get louder. That’s a road I really don’t think we want to go down.

So, if Boris wants to use his entirely uncontroversial right to ask the Queen to end this parliamentary session, write a Queen’s Speech and then open a new one, in the process quietening down those who seem not to understand the contract that exists between our sovereign parliament and the people who elect its members, so be it.

Well, Parliament now has a week to see what it can do.

Maybe Boris is trying to provoke them into calling an election. It's MUCH easier for his electoral prospects if he is forced into it rather than calling it himself.

Full BBC report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

The Queen will be asked by the government to suspend Parliament just days after MPs return to work in September - and only a few weeks before the Brexit deadline.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg says it will make way for Boris Johnson's new administration to hold a Queen's Speech - laying out the government's plans - on 14 October.
But it means MPs are unlikely to have time to pass any laws that could stop the prime minister taking the UK out of the EU without a deal on 31 October.

Worth pointing out that there is normally a Queen’s Speech every year, but as of right now there hasn’t been one since June 2017. So it really isn’t controversial to want to have one, nor is there anything unusual in all other parliamentary business coming to a grinding halt as a consequence of having one. This always happens. It’s just that this time we get to enjoy watching Tom Watson and Caroline Lucas stamping their feet and squealing about how unfair it all is.

Originally Posted by Chris

Full BBC report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632



Worth pointing out that there is normally a Queen’s Speech every year, but as of right now there hasn’t been one since June 2017. So it really isn’t controversial to want to have one, nor is there anything unusual in all other parliamentary business coming to a grinding halt as a consequence of having one. This always happens. It’s just that this time we get to enjoy watching Tom Watson and Caroline Lucas stamping their feet and squealing about how unfair it all is.

Well yes, but clearly the length of time is an intentional decision.

Originally Posted by Damien

Well, Parliament now has a week to see what it can do.

Maybe Boris is trying to provoke them into calling an election. It's MUCH easier for his electoral prospects if he is forced into it rather than calling it himself.

Corbyn didn’t want to immediately call for a No Confidence vote because last week it very quickly became clear he might not win one and even if he did, wouldn’t be able to form an alternative government. That’s why yesterday they all came out of that meeting patting themselves on the back for being all clever and cooperative and agreeing to try to pass a law preventing No Deal. They have to make the best of what’s achievable, and that is some way short of unseating Boris Johnson and his government.

Prorogation basically makes it impossible for them to pass any legislation before 31 October because most of the fortnight between the State Opening of Parliament and Brexit Day will be taken up with the Queen’s Speech debate and other government business. What little time opposition MPs might be able to purloin, will not be enough. There’s no point them commencing any legislation between now and 10 September either, because anything that hasn’t completed passage by the date of prorogation automatically fails.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

Also, just to shore up Boris’ electoral prospects in the event of a no confidence vote, BBC’s Laura K. is saying that the Queen’s Speech will be full of voter friendly promises on the NHS, law and order, etc.

---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Well yes, but clearly the length of time is an intentional decision.

Indeed. Yet nobody involved in this, on either side, is acting unconstitutionally. They are all proposing to use the processes that already exist in order to get their agenda through. Taking a longer view, Parliament may decide to use its powers to legislate and prevent things happening in this way in future. For the time being, its failure to address these sorts of potential circumstances is just as much an expression of its sovereign will as addressing them would have been.

Originally Posted by Chris

Corbyn didn’t want to immediately call for a No Confidence vote because last week it very quickly became clear he might not win one and even if he did, wouldn’t be able to form an alternative government. That’s why yesterday they all came out of that meeting patting themselves on the back for being all clever and cooperative and agreeing to try to pass a law preventing No Deal. They have to make the best of what’s achievable, and that is some way short of unseating Boris Johnson and his government.

Prorogation basically makes it impossible for them to pass any legislation before 31 October because most of the fortnight between the State Opening of Parliament and Brexit Day will be taken up with the Queen’s Speech debate and other government business. What little time opposition MPs might be able to purloin, will not be enough. There’s no point them commencing any legislation between now and 10 September either, because anything that hasn’t completed passage by the date of prorogation automatically fails.

Sure but then I am wondering if No 10s thinking here is that by reducing their Parliamentary options they can dare them into calling that VoNC and an election. An election in these circumstances suits Boris Johnson perfectly IMO.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

I wish people would be proportional in their outrage. Twitter/Reddit is just a no-go area now with people intentionally misunderstanding what the Queen's role is in all this.

I think Boris Johnson is behaving badly here but the Queen isn't being asked to suspend democracy.