diable rouge

-1...

If that is referring to Shipman's tweet... As the Sunday Times revealed a week ago, you can get around the 2\3rds majority needed for an election in the Fixed Term Parliaments Act by passing a one line bill that says ?notwithstanding the FTPA, we will have a general election on X date? Here are Law & Policy expert David Allen Green's comments on that... Am being asked a lot about this It is correct, but hardly a revelation Basic constitutional stuff '"Notwithstanding" legislation is always possible, but it would require primary legislation at speed through both Houses So basically saying it would need to pass through both the Commons and Lords. Good luck with that. He goes on to say... Any "notwithstanding" legislation for a general election, to sidestep the Fixed-term Parliament Act can be amended It can be amended this way: to block No Deal It can me amended that way: to withdraw prorogation It can be amended so many ways And the government knows it Again, good luck with that. Ah, I see that while I've been writing this you've amended and deleted the Laura Kuenssberg link you originally posted dbboy, so here it is again so people can relate it to my post...https://twitter.com/bbclaurak

BBC journo Norman Smith picking up on the strategy that Corbyn should follow thus rendering the dick-swinging Johnson nothing more than a political eunuch... Seems to me the Boris Johnson strategy cd be about to blow up in his face if MPs back No deal legislation AND block early general election.

paulu197 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Note that the PM is actually elected. We vote for > a party not a leader, its the party's perogative > to decide who should lead. Simple Not so simple, many people will base their vote depending on who the party leader is, for example I won't vote for Labour while Corbyn is their leader...

Week 4 points... Week 4 table... International break, back in about 10 days time...

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i think that it's hard to argue that 52% voted for > the same thing, so it's only right to check if > anything achievable from here is what people want > knowing what we know now (and if it is then (even > as a remainer) i would back getting on with it) I wouldn't back them getting on with it, but I would shut up..:)

That's why I wrote 'traitor' not traitor...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn has said today he will support a GE - but > I'm still not sure. One trap that has been highlighted today is that Johnson could propose an election date before the next EU Council meeting in mid-Oct, get MPs' approval but then later legally change the date to the 31st Oct or beyond. One would hope that Corbyn is aware of this and doesn't take the bait. The priority has to be to get legislation in place to stop No Deal on the 31st...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We're going to have to prioritise if there are > problems. > > Water, Medicines and Power come first (OK we can > put up with some power cuts but not many as we > rely on power so much these days - unlike the 70s > where power cuts happened regularly). > > Food variety and other stuff (toiletries) we can > make do for a while (it won't kill us). The United Kingdom. During peacetime. In 2019. Bonkers...

Obvs...

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And of course, a GE could produce the same result, > this leaving ya back in square one with a Brexit > deadline looming days after. > > Louisa. I think the reason for Johnson to call for a GE would be because the anti-no dealers had succeeded in getting legislation put in place to defer the 31st deadline by some means, e.g. compelling Johnson to ask for an extension. This will be the anti-no dealers main priority, not a vote of no confidence...

And as my post points out, it's quite easy for anti no-delaers to wrong foot Johnson...

It does sound hardcore but I haven't done that route for quite a while, at Elephant it used to be very easy with the cycle lanes and underpasses to avoid the traffic on the busy roundabouts...

Prediction for what should turn out to be a monumental week in Parliament: Rebels win and Johnson calls an election with his People v Politicians playbook. Only problem with that is he needs two thirds of MPs to agree i.e. quite a few Labour MPs to vote for it too. Normally Corbyn would be all over an election like a rash, but I'm wondering does he realise if he's cute enough he can make 'do or die' Johnson sweat it out until after the 31st deadline passes, after which Johnson politically 'dies' as he's screwed up on delivering Brexit. This opens the door for Farage again, but Corbyn has a much better chance of beating him than Johnson in an election, with the possibility of becoming PM in a Remain coalition...

I wish I had a fiver for very time I heard a Leave voter saying they knew exactly what they were voting for...

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the nation survived the global financial crisis > when the entire financial system was on the brink > of collapse - we will manage not being in the > European Union. Big difference, the credit crunch wasn't self-inflicted and the country wasn't divided by it. If you think it's bad now, it's going to get a lot worse whatever happens...

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I said previously May & Co faffed for three > years, Bojo is now enacting the outcome of the > referendum. If the govt failed to do this it would > not be doing the job it was elected to do May agreed a deal to leave, thus enacting the outcome of the referendum, it was voted for 3 times by 'traitors' like Grieve and Hammond, even Johnson and Rees Mogg flipped on the third attempt. It failed primarily because of hardcore Brexiters voting against it, knowing it could lead to no deal. Johnson is not enacting the outcome of the referendum if no deal happened, we were told there would be a deal, in Johnson's own words, ''we can have our cake and eat it'', that's what leavers voted for. I agree it can't go on, but neither can no deal be seen to be enacting the referendum...

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dr fair play to what you say.but dont you think > parliamentary democracy .went out the window some > time a go .ie elected representatives completely > ignoring the referendum result from the voters > that put them in Parliament .that's not democracy > surely.another example the latest by election > result.which the liberal democrats won.that > constituency voted leave 58% .yet the newly > elected mp straightaway saids I will do all I can > to stop brexit.that's not democracy.that's the > point I was trying to make above.was what's the > point of voting if MPs do their own thing. The problem with the referendum was that there wasn't a clear definition of what Brexit actually meant and entailed, e.g. soft, medium, hard Brexit etc. The Leave campaign said there would be a deal but didn't elaborate. So after the referendum this left it open to interpretation. May's deal honoured the referendum in that we would've left the EU, but it wasn't Brexity enough for the ERG types. The thing about elected representatives is that they can't please all their constituents, so whatever they do there will be people upset with them. There are plenty of Leave voting MPs in Remain voting constituencies. They are therefore expected to put national interest first even if it goes against their constituents wishes, knowing they can always be voted out one day. The recent Lib Dem win in Wales happened 3 years after the referendum, that tells me some people have changed their mind in that time, one of the reasons why a confirmatory referendum on any deal is a good idea. They also knew what the Lib Dems stand for, to stop Brexit. We can't keep harking back to a day over 3 years ago as if time stood still. People now know much more what Brexit entails and the economic damage it will cause, especially No Deal which wasn't even discussed during the referendum...

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So how do you describe 1930's Germany, Hitler and > the resulting catastrophe which resulted? Clusterfuck seems appropriate, not to be confused with other clusterfucks that have happened during the history of time...

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I take it you've gone off the whole 'Swiss Model' > idea Dulwich Fox? Or maybe just didn't see my > question to you about it above? Google didn't have an answer to your question Jenny...

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now, it's the inference that you clearly make Wrong, it's the inference that you clearly have made. Fascism seeks to destroy parliamentary liberalism, hence why I used it in the context of this Gov shutting down parliament. I deliberately used the term fascism in the generic term rather than a specific form of fascism. It was you that equated fascism to 'Nazi Germany'. By the way, fascism's roots are actually in Italian politics...

Not many working people bought houses back then, and a lot moved out because of the shortage of housing due to the war and general slum-like conditions. Working people buying their own homes only became popular when they could buy their council owned property under Thatcher's Right to Buy. Ironically that started the cycle of houses becoming unaffordable for future generations...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ...again the Remainiacs resort to personal > insults Deja vu!...:)

Errrr, Sadiq Khan doesn't speak for me and what I wrote. Keep trying...

He doesn't even live in Dulwich. Can't confirm whether or not he's a mangy, flea ridden scavenger though...