Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1179520731027251201

Here’s why Mr Corbyn simply doesn’t have the numbers ... #RealityCheck needed & a unity candidate
Click to expand...

Table embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179628959245438976

Even if you massage the figures a little, there's no way of getting Corbyn a majority of support. LibDems recognised that reality early on and have tried to move past it to work out how a Government of National Unity might be constituted. Aiming flak at them is the wrong target.
Click to expand...
 
Nessie said:
It does look like the DUP have decided to compromise to a remarkable extent, just to get Brexit done.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179401250573557760

The DUP sounds like they’re onboard, as well they might be, given the power the proposals would effectively grant them.

I would be *astonished* if the Irish govt can be seen to go along with something which basically allows the DUP to pull NI out of regulatory arrangements as it likes. It’s essentially a diluted time limited backstop.

If the Assembly falls apart (reminder: it’s not sat for years) hard border is default. There’s no safety net. That’s exactly what the backstop was there to prevent.
Click to expand...
 
"Guy Verhofstadt, the former prime minister of Belgium who coordinates the European parliament’s Brexit steering group, said it was “nearly impossible” to see how a deal could be secured on the basis of the proposals.

He pointed to a leaked script handed to Conservative MPs by the party, which instructed them to attack the EU as “crazy” if it rejected proposals as an indication of Johnson’s insincerity about wanting a deal.

“If there is a Tory document saying that they have to blame the European Union then it’s obvious that that is the purpose,” he said."

No surprises there then.
 
Nessie said:
Noel Edmunds should be the DUP spokesman, "deal or no deal". It looks like a deal, but it is just the postponing of any final decision until after Brexit which crucially, gives NI more say in what happens.
Click to expand...
Probably not a great move by the DUP, strategically.
 
Darat said:
So the likes of the lib dems only want a government of national unity on their terms. Not very national nor unifying of them.
Click to expand...
Everyone who doesn't want Jeremy Corbyn to be PM are the ones to blame for Jeremy Corbyn not being PM.

Pretty much. But looks like we can't pretend that JC could lead a unity government, or even that he could if not for the LibDems holding out.

Not very national or unifying of him to insist on me me me.
 
psionl0 said:
Why only me? Why is everybody else allowed to continue to attack me with gay abandon?

I'm guessing that it is because you on their side.


No, you said that the answer is that an order made under royal prerogative is subject to judicial review. Even if the Royal Prerogative is exercised under ministerial advice, it is not being disputed that it is "subject to judicial review". However, it doesn't answer the question I asked.
Click to expand...

Fine, the constraints upon what kind of advice the PM can give the Queen is contained in the Privy Councillor Oath:

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God."

Yeah, I'd say there's a few behaviors at play he ran afoul of. To lie or by clever control of a narrow set of truths try to engineer your monarch into a decision for your own or others' benefit is probably not something to just let slide.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Fine, the constraints upon what kind of advice the PM can give the Queen is contained in the Privy Councillor Oath:

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God."

Yeah, I'd say there's a few behaviors at play he ran afoul of. To lie or by clever control of a narrow set of truths try to engineer your monarch into a decision for your own or others' benefit is probably not something to just let slide.
Click to expand...

It absolutely stuns me that the UK maintains the trappings of such a disgusting thing as royalty. Being a true and faithful servant to a woman who's only accomplishment is being born to a particular family. Seriously?
 
acbytesla said:
It absolutely stuns me that the UK maintains the trappings of such a disgusting thing as royalty. Being a true and faithful servant to a woman who's only accomplishment is being born to a particular family. Seriously?
Click to expand...

They're only trappings.
 
acbytesla said:
It absolutely stuns me that the UK maintains the trappings of such a disgusting thing as royalty. Being a true and faithful servant to a woman who's only accomplishment is being born to a particular family. Seriously?
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, there are clear parallels to republics that remain an important principle regardless of specifics of the figurehead position.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
While I agree with you, there are clear parallels to republics that remain an important principle regardless of specifics of the figurehead position.
Click to expand...

I just find this kind of sycophantic treatment to be beneath a modern nation.
 
Francesca R said:
Everyone who doesn't want Jeremy Corbyn to be PM are the ones to blame for Jeremy Corbyn not being PM.



Pretty much. But looks like we can't pretend that JC could lead a unity government, or even that he could if not for the LibDems holding out.



Not very national or unifying of him to insist on me me me.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree, it's just amusing to me how it's always the other lot that is at fault.
 
The reaction as reported on the BBC from the EU and Ireland is that the answer will be no to Johnson's deal as it contains nothing that is new.
 
acbytesla said:
It absolutely stuns me that the UK maintains the trappings of such a disgusting thing as royalty. Being a true and faithful servant to a woman who's only accomplishment is being born to a particular family. Seriously?
Click to expand...
Well we don't swear allegiance to them on a daily basis or anything, so it's easy to ignore them in general.
 
Nessie said:
The reaction as reported on the BBC from the EU and Ireland is that the answer will be no to Johnson's deal as it contains nothing that is new.
Click to expand...
They would say that. They're desperate to keep the UK in the EU, or failing that keep the UK tied into observing EU rules and regulations so that we're no competition to them.
 
acbytesla said:
Then why not move on? Either it's a waste of time or it's sad.
Click to expand...

In any case, for the purpose of maybe finally satisfying psionl0, the point is made that whatever the process of prorogation, under this system any results arising from abuse of that process will be annulled.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom