Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[BadBoy]

To be overheard everywhere in London:

AMERICAN TOURIST: Oh those Christmas lights are real purdy...but ours are bigger.

ANOTHER US TOURIST: I just love your li'l ol' Circuses (re Oxford Circus) but in the States, they're bigger.

US TOURIST (overheard in Finland): Can I get a double cheese and bacon burger? Ours back home are bigger!

I saw a TV show a while ago where someplace in America they were building a plastic copy of Stonehenge (a copy of the one in Wiltshire in the UK).

Only thing is she said theirs was going to be bigger and not all falling down

 

[KDLarsen]

An interesting read on the whole Palace of Westminster renovation debacle: https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...cay-the-houses-of-parliament-are-falling-down

 

[McHrozni]

The UK parliament is in dire need of modernisation is all sorts of areas. I like some tradition as much as the next fella, but clinging on to decrepit, unsuitable, impractical infrastructure is just stupid.

I was fortunate enough to dine in the Stranger's Dining Room last year and loved it. The food was great and the staff were fantastic. The place reeks of history and carries serious traditional weight behind it. But when you see how politicians are behaving these days, it's clear that the weight of history is not impeding them in any way, so lets move on, build a new parliament and leave the old one as a museum.

I'd consider building new Parliamentary chambers nearby for day to day business, debates, votes and whatnot and only use the old chamber for the most serious of issues: Queen's speech, votes of no confidence, major changes to constitutional arrangements of the state, debates about declerations of war, that sort of thing. For the Brexit debacle I'd hold the debate about the Withdrawal Bill in the current House of Commons, the rest would all be relegated to the mundane New Chambers, with circular seating (encouraging debate, not confrontation), electronic voting and a seat for each MP, among other amneties. The VNOC in Theresa May could be in the Old Chambers and the vote for early elections would also be in the Old Chambers. In this unprecendented era Parliament would sit in the Old Chambers maybe three times in three years, not counting the opening of Parliament. In more usual times it would be just for the Queen's Speech once a year and maybe once more for the course of an entire electoral cycle.

This could enhance the standing of Westminster even. "The issue was so important it was debated in the Old Chambers" sounds like a lovely phrase, very British and in a good way. Those are few and far between nowadays. The weight of history is stronger if it's only displayed when necessary.

The chambers could still be used as a museum for ~11 months a year.

McHrozni

 

[a_unique_person]

Flinders said: “There are those who realise that if they allow new intakes of MPs to go into a new chamber, with new atmospheres, new ways of doing things, places for everyone to sit, new procedures, new ways of talking, they may refuse to go back into what may to them feel like an antique shop.”

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...cay-the-houses-of-parliament-are-falling-down

 

[Mojo]

I saw a TV show a while ago where someplace in America they were building a plastic copy of Stonehenge (a copy of the one in Wiltshire in the UK).

Only thing is she said theirs was going to be bigger and not all falling down

Didn’t Spinal Tap already do that?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Government capitulated again, the anti no-deal Brexit bill is going to be passed in the House of Lords by friday, before parliament is prorogued next week.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49588186

It looks like BJ will get his election after all - but only after breaking the key promise he made.

McHrozni

Not seen any confirmation yet of what Labour agreed to in order to make this happen.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'd consider building new Parliamentary chambers nearby for day to day business, debates, votes and whatnot and only use the old chamber for the most serious of issues: Queen's speech, votes of no confidence, major changes to constitutional arrangements of the state, debates about declerations of war, that sort of thing. For the Brexit debacle I'd hold the debate about the Withdrawal Bill in the current House of Commons, the rest would all be relegated to the mundane New Chambers, with circular seating (encouraging debate, not confrontation), electronic voting and a seat for each MP, among other amneties. The VNOC in Theresa May could be in the Old Chambers and the vote for early elections would also be in the Old Chambers. In this unprecendented era Parliament would sit in the Old Chambers maybe three times in three years, not counting the opening of Parliament. In more usual times it would be just for the Queen's Speech once a year and maybe once more for the course of an entire electoral cycle.

This could enhance the standing of Westminster even. "The issue was so important it was debated in the Old Chambers" sounds like a lovely phrase, very British and in a good way. Those are few and far between nowadays. The weight of history is stronger if it's only displayed when necessary.

The chambers could still be used as a museum for ~11 months a year.

McHrozni

Sounds like a logistical nightmare shuffling people back and forth in London to debate issues in different chambers. Lots of wasted time and taxi fares. Not to mention security issues.

 

[Vixen]

It's to do with pomp and circumstance and to preserve the image of privilege, rank and elitism. History should be honoured and respected IMV.

It'll be a sad day when Parliament is moved to a conference room at Wembley Arena or O2.

 

[McHrozni]

Sounds like a logistical nightmare shuffling people back and forth in London to debate issues in different chambers. Lots of wasted time and taxi fares. Not to mention security issues.

Not necessarily, I'd build the two chamber as close as possible to each other and only use the Old Chambers on specific days, instead of the New Chambers. There wouldn't be any shuffling involved, MPs and other relevant personnel would simply come to work to a different building on a few (<<5) days a year.

You're right though, it is logistically more difficult and the setup where all debates happen in the same chamber. Considering said Parliament is searched yearly with lantern lamps for hidden explosive bodies though that doesn't seem out of the realm of normal for the institution.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It's to do with pomp and circumstance and to preserve the image of privilege, rank and elitism. History should be honoured and respected IMV.

It'll be a sad day when Parliament is moved to a conference room at Wembley Arena or O2.

Yes, exactly. Pomp and circumstance have their uses, which is why they should be preserved for important questions - Queen's speech, major constitutional questions, votes of no confidence, that sort of thing.

There's no real need for Parliament to debate regulations on sheepherding industry or other minor issues with much pomp and circumstance though. Though I'm sure they're important to some they're not the kind of questions that need the weight of history behind them.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Not seen any confirmation yet of what Labour agreed to in order to make this happen.

Corbyn wants to be PM, he'll support another election. He's been asking for one for almost a year now - but only once it is certain UK will still be a member of EU when the election is held.

McHrozni

 

[wobs]

The UK parliament is in dire need of modernisation is all sorts of areas. I like some tradition as much as the next fella, but clinging on to decrepit, unsuitable, impractical infrastructure is just stupid.

I was fortunate enough to dine in the Stranger's Dining Room last year and loved it. The food was great and the staff were fantastic. The place reeks of history and carries serious traditional weight behind it. But when you see how politicians are behaving these days, it's clear that the weight of history is not impeding them in any way, so lets move on, build a new parliament and leave the old one as a museum.

It goes beyond that however. They need to update the Standing Orders, chuck out Erskine May and start again. (I'm aware that this is unlikely to happen, and has many issues, but I'm talking idealistically

As much as I love the building, it wouldn't surprise me if they build a new permanent parliament building after all of this farce has settled down. Say 10-15 years time.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Not necessarily, I'd build the two chamber as close as possible to each other and only use the Old Chambers on specific days, instead of the New Chambers. There wouldn't be any shuffling involved, MPs and other relevant personnel would simply come to work to a different building on a few (<<5) days a year.

You're right though, it is logistically more difficult and the setup where all debates happen in the same chamber. Considering said Parliament is searched yearly with lantern lamps for hidden explosive bodies though that doesn't seem out of the realm of normal for the institution.

McHrozni

That's not really how Parliament works though. If you watch it on TV you will see the bigger debates bookended by smaller ones. Or are you suggesting that the whole days business be done in the old chamber when something important happens? And who would decide where debates are held? Much better to just do away with it altogether. Move the whole shebang to Aberdeen and see how England likes it.

 

[3point14]

As much as I love the building, it wouldn't surprise me if they build a new permanent parliament building after all of this farce has settled down. Say 10-15 years time.

In Leicester, where it would be sensible to have it...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Corbyn wants to be PM, he'll support another election. He's been asking for one for almost a year now - but only once it is certain UK will still be a member of EU when the election is held.

McHrozni

The election will come anyway because the maths is unsustainable now. A VONC will pass whenever Labour want one. In that regard BJ isn't really offering anything of value in an election.

The question is whether Labour will give BJ one before Oct 31 in order to get the Bill through the Lords - which would probably be a waste of time because if and when BJ wins the election he can simply repeal that bill.

Presumably Corbyn has agreed to this otherwise they would still be filibustering in the Lords.

 

[McHrozni]

That's not really how Parliament works though. If you watch it on TV you will see the bigger debates bookended by smaller ones. Or are you suggesting that the whole days business be done in the old chamber when something important happens?

Yup. I know it's not how Parliament works now, but for debates of the magnitude that are only held once or twice per election cycle at most making the change and pushing the business of minor issues to preceeding or suceeding days seems doable.

It's a change and I know Brits hate those, but I think it would also be an improvement.

And who would decide where debates are held?

The Crown obviously, acting on the advice of the PM. Who else?

Much better to just do away with it altogether. Move the whole shebang to Aberdeen and see how England likes it.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The election will come anyway because the maths is unsustainable now. A VONC will pass whenever Labour want one. In that regard BJ isn't really offering anything of value in an election.

The question is whether Labour will give BJ one before Oct 31 in order to get the Bill through the Lords - which would probably be a waste of time because if and when BJ wins the election he can simply repeal that bill.

Presumably Corbyn has agreed to this otherwise they would still be filibustering in the Lords.

I think Corbyn agreed to a fresh election, but only after Brexit day. That's easy enough to do, hold a VNOC just after October 19th. Parliament will be out of session most of the time anyway.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

I think Corbyn agreed to a fresh election, but only after Brexit day. That's easy enough to do, hold a VNOC just after October 19th. Parliament will be out of session most of the time anyway.

McHrozni

If that happens then Boris Johnson could just ignore the vote, not write the letter and let the UK crash out with no-deal on 31 October.

The only way that Labour can be sure is to not even agree to a GE until after the 31 October deadline has passed and Boris Johnson has completely failed to deliver on his no-deal promise.

 

[McHrozni]

If that happens then Boris Johnson could just ignore the vote, not write the letter and let the UK crash out with no-deal on 31 October.

The only way that Labour can be sure is to not even agree to a GE until after the 31 October deadline has passed and Boris Johnson has completely failed to deliver on his no-deal promise.

As things stand this is not too hard to do, Parliament will not be sitting for most of the time. BJ will be forced to write the letter to the EU, it should all be clear by October 21st. That means Parliament will only sit for what, six days between today and the VNOC.

With BJ waiting for another two weeks seems prudent of course.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

As things stand this is not too hard to do, Parliament will not be sitting for most of the time. BJ will be forced to write the letter to the EU, it should all be clear by October 21st. That means Parliament will only sit for what, six days between today and the VNOC.

With BJ waiting for another two weeks seems prudent of course.

McHrozni

Even if the bill passes, and Boris Johnson is required to write a letter to the EU - there's no guarantee that he'll actually do it. After all, if he writes the letter he's screwed so why not refuse to write the letter, what's the worst that can happen ?