Some bright red faces that are very quiet at the moment.
'Mad suggestion': how Tory ministers once viewed call to prorogue parliament
Boris Johnson’s move to suspend parliament as the weeks tick down to October’s Brexit deadline has left some high-profile Tory ministers in a difficult situation, given their previously candid opposition to the idea.
Matt Hancock During the recent Tory leadership contest, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said the idea of suspending parliament “goes against everything those men who waded onto those beaches fought & died for – and I will not have it”.
Amber Rudd Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, in June described the suspending of parliament as “absolutely outrageous” . “The idea of leaving the EU to take back more control into parliament and to consider the idea of closing parliament to do that is the most extraordinary idea I’ve ever heard,” she said.
Sajid Javid The now chancellor, Sajid Javid, was also vehemently opposed to shutting down parliament, during the Tory leadership campaign, saying: “You don’t deliver on democracy by trashing democracy ... we are not selecting a dictator of our country”
'You don't deliver democracy by trashing democracy.' - you can't just shut down parliament - says @sajidjavid #TeamSaj #C4debate pic.twitter.com/DOPClG3EVH
Liz Truss The international trade secretary and longtime Johnson defender told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis in June that the idea of suspending parliament was an “archaic manoeuvre” that Johnson had already ruled out. “He wants to bring parliament with him,” she said. She was asked: “He’s definitely ruling out proroguing or suspending parliament, is that right?” Her answer was: “That’s right.”
Michael Gove Staunchly pro-leave Michael Gove, now chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was also against suspending parliament, telling the BBC’s Andrew Marr show: “I think it will be wrong for many reasons. I think it would not be true to the best traditions of British democracy”.
Nicky Morgan The culture secretary told the BBC’s Question Time programme that proroguing parliament was “clearly a mad suggestion”. “You cannot say you are going to take back control … and then go: ‘Oh, by the way, we are just going to shut parliament down for a couple of months, so we are just going to drift out on a no deal’,” he said.
Andrea Leadsom Asked in July if she would go along with a plan to suspend parliament to ensure a no-deal Brexit, Leadsom, a leading supporter of Boris Johnson, and now the business secretary, said: “No I don’t believe I would and I don’t believe it would happen.”
Proroguing Parliament undermines parliamentary democracy and risks a general election. I rule it out and call on all candidates to do the same
Hancock wrote to parliament parliament on 6 June, saying that “England is the mother of all parliaments – respected as such around the free world”. “To suspend Parliament explicitly to pursue a course of action against its wishes is not a serious policy of a prime minister in the 21st Century,” the letter said.
Proroguing parliament is "the most extraordinary idea I've ever heard" and a "ridiculous suggestion" says Amber Rudd. #Ridge “It is a ridiculous suggestion to consider proroguing parliament. For a start it would involve approaching the Queen and nobody should consider doing that,” she said.
"Liz Truss The international trade secretary and longtime Johnson defender told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis in June that the idea of suspending parliament was an “archaic manoeuvre” that Johnson had already ruled out. “He wants to bring parliament with him,” she said. She was asked: “He’s definitely ruling out proroguing or suspending parliament, is that right?” Her answer was: “That’s right.”
I'm not sure a single soul on earth - except Liz Truss - takes an iota of notice of what Liz Truss says, does or thinks.
I'm not keen on being rude about others, especially when in effect, they can't reply, but Ms Truss is, how shall we say, "not fit for purpose" as an MP, never mind International Trade Secretary.
The poor lady is in way over her head I'm afraid. She's the best example you will ever see of The Peter Principle;
It also details how John Major used prorogation to avoid the cash for questions scandal and how it's used quite frequently.
It usually happens on an annual basis, for a couple of days prior to a Queens speech which starts a new session. Boris has other motives which are clear for everyone to see.
"Liz Truss The international trade secretary and longtime Johnson defender told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis in June that the idea of suspending parliament was an “archaic manoeuvre” that Johnson had already ruled out. “He wants to bring parliament with him,” she said. She was asked: “He’s definitely ruling out proroguing or suspending parliament, is that right?” Her answer was: “That’s right.”
I'm not sure a single soul on earth - except Liz Truss - takes an iota of notice of what Liz Truss says, does or thinks.
I'm not keen on being rude about others, especially when in effect, they can't reply, but Ms Truss is, how shall we say, "not fit for purpose" as an MP, never mind International Trade Secretary.
The poor lady is in way over her head I'm afraid. She's the best example you will ever see of The Peter Principle;
Petition Do not prorogue Parliament Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled. Sign this petition 1,513,996 signatures
I think it is important to focus on what is actually achievable, rather than meaningless posturing-petitions are a waste of time.
Opposition to "no deal" needs to decide on just one way forward. For me, it is as follows:-
1. Accept that the UK have voted to leave 2. Campaign for a new referendum (or a General Election, as it will amount to the same thing) on HOW (not if) we leave-not least because we will already have left before any vote takes place 3. The obvious candidates would be:- A. No deal until such a time as a deal is reached; or B. Leave and keep the Customs Union in place until such a time as a deal is reached
That way, we just might not ruin this country arguing whether 2016 should have happened. We can't rewrite history. But it is not too late to move forward sensibly.
And, just in case anyone thinks B wouldn't win by a landslide, just wait to see what November brings.
Will it be as bad as some say? No. But it IS likely top cause a significant drop in house prices, a massive hike in food prices, major delays in imports/exports with queues of lorries for miles, and various shortages in things we have taken for granted since the 1960s, including various medicines. That is NOT project fear. Just economic reality when people and businesses are unsure of the future.
I think it is important to focus on what is actually achievable, rather than meaningless posturing-petitions are a waste of time.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think that any stone should be left unturned, when it comes to the avoidance of no deal.
Opposition to "no deal" needs to decide on just one way forward. For me, it is as follows:-
The parliamentary focus by opposition parties is on stopping no deal, rather than finding a way forward. This seems to merely lead to another extension, rather than a solution. I think that a further extension or a successful no confidence vote will lead to an election, as it currently seems unlikely that an agreement by the opposition parties, on any particular politician to lead an alternative government is unlikely.
The circumstances that will play a massive part in any election are as follows.
1 The Tory vote will be hugely affected by the Brexit Party if we haven't left the EU. 2 Even though an election after leaving should negate the Brexit Party vote, if we happened to be in the middle of the no deal chaos leading up to the election, the public would surely blame the Tories.
I am not sure that an election outcome is easy to predict, and the Tory share of the vote will surely depend on whether we have left or not.
This will also affect the opposition parties, and what they stand on.
Labours current position is that they will vote against any Tory Brexit, unless there is a second referendum option, in which case they will support remain.
However, a Labour government would support leaving with a better Labour negotiated deal. So their position is that they support both sides of the argument. This position seems designed to lose them votes by alienating one side or the other, in any election.
I think it is unclear what the other opposition parties would stand on if we had already left the EU.
Around the time of the EU elections, the polls were predicting almost a 4 way split on the vote, which would provide an inconclusive outcome to a general election.
They have changed since, due to Boris and his do or die, leave by the 31st October policy. Although if this didn't happen they may revert to the previous predictions.
I don't know if you saw Newsnight last night, but they invited 4 "experts" to predict the outcome. Each of them predicted a different result. The predictions were as follows, 1 Something like Theresa Mays deal going through. 2 No deal. 3 Revoking Article 50. 4 A new Boris deal going through prior to the end of October.
1. Accept that the UK have voted to leave
The current bunch of MPs are not prepared to do this. The remain culprits in the Tory Party have mostly voted for Theresa Mays deal, yet the ERG hardliners haven't and are responsible for us not leaving by now. It is unclear whether a general election would provide any party with an overall majority, or alter the current impasse. Brexiteers not voting for Brexit? You couldn't make it up?
3. Campaign for a new referendum (or a General Election, as it will amount to the same thing) on HOW (not if) we leave-not least because we will already have left before any vote takes place
Nobody is advocating this, nor is leaving before a general election guaranteed.
A general election could only amount to the same thing as a referendum, is if it occurred before we had left.
5. The obvious candidates would be:- A. No deal until such a time as a deal is reached; or B. Leave and keep the Customs Union in place until such a time as a deal is reached
If Parliament is able to stop no deal, and forces a further extension, it changes everything. If they are able to pass legislation that doesn't allow us to leave without a deal, we will be back to square one.
That way, we just might not ruin this country arguing whether 2016 should have happened. We can't rewrite history. But it is not too late to move forward sensibly.
Boris is responsible for uniting the opposition parties, making the outcome less clear, but surely making the no deal outcome less likely
And, just in case anyone thinks B wouldn't win by a landslide, just wait to see what November brings.
I am not sure how they would accomplish this, as the future trading relationship is phase 2 of the negotiations, and to even reach there, a withdrawal agreement has to be passed.
Will it be as bad as some say? No. But it IS likely top cause a significant drop in house prices, a massive hike in food prices, major delays in imports/exports with queues of lorries for miles, and various shortages in things we have taken for granted since the 1960s, including various medicines. That is NOT project fear. Just economic reality when people and businesses are unsure of the future.
I think it is difficult to say how bad it will be. Although it will clearly damage our economy forever. It will cost jobs. Ruin just in time manufacturers. Discourage any foreign manufacturers in future from setting up in the UK with a view to accessing the EU market, something that many have done in the past. Put many companies out of business through the extra costs involved. On top of this the extra ongoing costs in implementing, and administrating the changes required, are likely to outstrip the cost of membership. In addition to the fact that Ireland is likely to become a smugglers paradise, and a gateway for illegal immigrants. It may also signal the breakup of the UK. I wouldn't disagree with anything that you have listed, and will finish before this list turns into the biggest wall of text I have ever written.
The main disadvantage of "leaving no stone unturned" is that you do not focus on what may be the more important aims, and spend 3 years doing nothing other than turning stones.
I do not believe there will be another extension-we are likely to leave on 31st October. This will mean that the debate will inevitably change.
An election is never easy to predict. However, part of me feels that, if the fall-out is as bad as I (and almost all experts) predict, then the Conservative Party is going to implode. The odd thing is that the people who will suffer most are likely to be conservative Party voters.
It is entirely possible that some form of deal will be agreed. No-one should underestimate Boris' ability to do ANYTHING in his own interest. He is certainly not trusted by the Right wing of his own party. Of those 4 experts, I think 3 is the rank outsider.
People are increasingly advocating focussing on HOW we leave. As an example, Ken Clarke mentioned it at length in his speech yesterday.
a general election is NEVER the same as a referendum-it inevitably deals with a multitude of issues. In any event, "In or Out" is a totally different question to "Flounce off and pretend we still have an Empire".
This "Phase 1/Phase 2" thing is largely a smokescreen to prevent progress. There is nothing to stop people moving forward, provided all agree that temporary arrangements remain until replaced by permanent ones. A "No deal" leads to more problems (for all sides) than any backstop. Also people seem to forget that any backstop MUST involve disadvantages for BOTH sides, otherwise there would be no incentive to actually agree and avoid its implementation.
The main disadvantage of "leaving no stone unturned" is that you do not focus on what may be the more important aims, and spend 3 years doing nothing other than turning stones.
I don't see this as a massive topic to argue about. However the general public is involved in the petition. Whereas the opposition parties are clearly focused on stopping no deal, and others involved in court cases to stop prorogation. So while stones are being unturned, different people are involved in the unturning.
I do not believe there will be another extension-we are likely to leave on 31st October. This will mean that the debate will inevitably change.
If the opposition parties are successful in implementing legislation to stop no deal, something they have already voted against a number of times, then the options will be getting the withdrawal agreement through, an extension or a new deal.
An election is never easy to predict. However, part of me feels that, if the fall-out is as bad as I (and almost all experts) predict, then the Conservative Party is going to implode. The odd thing is that the people who will suffer most are likely to be conservative Party voters.
Not leaving would also he a huge disaster for them.
It is entirely possible that some form of deal will be agreed. No-one should underestimate Boris' ability to do ANYTHING in his own interest. He is certainly not trusted by the Right wing of his own party. Of those 4 experts, I think 3 is the rank outsider.
The ERG will make getting any deal through extremely difficult. Although who knows what will happen as we get closer to the deadline, and choices are narrowed. I think the only way number 3 could happen is if we got right down to the wire, were staring down the barrel of no deal, and revoke was the only alternative.
People are increasingly advocating focussing on HOW we leave. As an example, Ken Clarke mentioned it at length in his speech yesterday.
It only needed 30 MPs to have changed their minds on the last meaningful vote, and we would have been out by now. The ERG could have just about done it. All the opposition parties are in favour of remaining, or at least another referendum with a remain option. Some Labour MPs favour leaving, but these are offset by the remainer Tories. So the House of Commons remains around 50/50.
a general election is NEVER the same as a referendum-it inevitably deals with a multitude of issues. In any event, "In or Out" is a totally different question to "Flounce off and pretend we still have an Empire".
This "Phase 1/Phase 2" thing is largely a smokescreen to prevent progress. There is nothing to stop people moving forward, provided all agree that temporary arrangements remain until replaced by permanent ones. A "No deal" leads to more problems (for all sides) than any backstop. Also people seem to forget that any backstop MUST involve disadvantages for BOTH sides, otherwise there would be no incentive to actually agree and avoid its implementation.
Firstly EU rules apparently don't allow trade deals to be negotiated with existing members. If my understanding of the backstop is correct then the objections to it are unwarranted. Immediately after leaving we were meant enter an implementation period for 21 moths, during which time a trade deal would be negotiated. Assuming that the trade deal hadn't been concluded by the end of the implementation period the backstop would come into play, allowing us to continue trading without any impediments, until the completion of the trade deal. At which time the new trading arrangements would come into force. The original backstop was in respect of NI, only. After objections from the DUP, and their insistence that NI being treated differently to the rest of the UK, was unacceptable. This resulted in the backstop being amended to cover the whole of the UK. This is despite the fact that NI is already treated differently and undergoes some additional checks. The backstop was only meant to be used for a short time, if at all. It was clearly an EU concession. We wouldn't pay financial contributions while in the backstop, whereas we would in the implementation period. The criticism over us being stuck in it seem bizarre. This would seem to conclude that there is a possibility that we would never reach a deal, and ignore the fact that one parliament cannot bind the hands of any future parliament. The EU have already agreed to replace it with technological solutions as and when they become available. It is apparently possible to extend the implementation period, and avoid the backstop. If it is likely to take say 5 years to negotiate a deal, then why not have a 5 year transition period, which could be extended further if we weren't quite there. We would be still paying our contributions, so everyone would be happy, and know where they were. The backstop was always meant to be a last resort.
I think it is important to focus on what is actually achievable, rather than meaningless posturing-petitions are a waste of time.
Opposition to "no deal" needs to decide on just one way forward. For me, it is as follows:-
1. Accept that the UK have voted to leave 2. Campaign for a new referendum (or a General Election, as it will amount to the same thing) on HOW (not if) we leave-not least because we will already have left before any vote takes place 3. The obvious candidates would be:- A. No deal until such a time as a deal is reached; or B. Leave and keep the Customs Union in place until such a time as a deal is reached
That way, we just might not ruin this country arguing whether 2016 should have happened. We can't rewrite history. But it is not too late to move forward sensibly.
And, just in case anyone thinks B wouldn't win by a landslide, just wait to see what November brings.
Will it be as bad as some say? No. But it IS likely top cause a significant drop in house prices, a massive hike in food prices, major delays in imports/exports with queues of lorries for miles, and various shortages in things we have taken for granted since the 1960s, including various medicines. That is NOT project fear. Just economic reality when people and businesses are unsure of the future.
The other thing that I failed to mention is that we would have to retain single market, and customs union membership, to avoid the need for an Irish border. Customs union membership alone would not suffice. If the deal we intend to negotiate will not include the membership of both, we would have to remain in the backstop until the technological solutions became available. No deal requires a border. The more you explore the nitty gritty, the more obvious it becomes that the Brexit that was sold to the general public during the referendum campaign doesn't, and will never exist. Many members of the public think that leaving in October means it is all over, when it will be just beginning. Many think that no deal is an outcome, when the first thing we will have to do after leaving with no deal, is negotiate a deal, while coping with the chaos. Leaving with or without a deal means years of negotiations.
Nope..... I wanted the UK to control our own Borders (even though it might not now include Northern Ireland), and also stop having Brussels telling us what to do. Can you imagine Donald putting up with that??
I have a friend here in Perran who, having got his degree at Uni., really wanted to join the UK Border Force (would you believe).... sadly due to cutbacks, and the freedom of movement in Europe, there were no jobs available for him, so he ended up working on min. wage at Halfords for 5 years. Hopefully now he will be able to do the job he always wanted to
...... Every Cloud..... and all that.
At last.
Really?
Are you saying that you voted to leave the EU, our biggest trading partner, with whom we conduct around half our trade, which currently provides millions of jobs, after 45 years, to help your friend in Halfords to get a better job?
All future maps of the UK should include a big arrow pointing to the Irish border, and include this text. "All Smugglers, and Illegal Immigrants This Way".
I cant believe that you really think we are taking control of our borders?
I am not even going to address whose fault I think it is, when someone with a degree takes a minimum wage job in Halfords.
I will however point out the following.
Any additional customs officers jobs are likely to be created at the ports that deal with EU trade, and Eurotunnel.
For example Dover deal with 10,000 trucks per day travelling to and from Europe. Perran, not so many.
It is therefore likely that to take advantage of the increased demand for customs officers, he may be required to move to where the vacancies are created.
Assuming he is prepared to do this, he could probably have done it 5 years ago, and avoided the Halfords job.
In which way do you think that our EU membership has caused what you describe as cutbacks?
What has Freedom of Movement got to do with anything in this context?
The destruction of our just in time manufacturing would seem a very high price to pay for a few customs jobs?
What in particular have Brussels told us to do that you disagree with, or has affected your life in an adverse way?
I am not even going to get into Donald Trump, but didn't he promise to build a border wall, and get the Mexicans to pay for it?
sorry to pop into this debate but feel as a ordinary guy i should explain my side so here goes ....im not well educated and to be honest debating is not in my nature as I do not understand or even have any knowledge of what Brexit means either way and to be honest do not care one way or another as no one knows for sure how it will pan out … ive said before how ever you voted ( I voted remain.. only because better the devil you no than the devil you don't ) over the last 3yrs no one can deny this process is destroying our country as I see it ( my opinion ) as there is no trade deal even been discussed yet only a agreement to leave before any trade deal is discussed and our MPs from all parties turned down 3 times and there only response is put it back to the people or general election in the hope of over turning the result ( my opinion again ) …
Now we have all this over Boris going to the Queen being blown out of proportion its 5 days max as it co-insides with all parties having there conferences .. im starting to think I made a mistake not following the will of the people.. as a ordinary guy im confused as to why the wealthy MPs are the ones **** bent on stopping what the majority voted for when they said they would follow it thru in there elections to stay as a MPs ( my opinion again ) as ive said im not educated... who in the UK is better suited to living on a budget the ordinary guy or the MPs who we pay do right by us but live with a expense account payed for out of our tax's
Would be very hard for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, to seek a no-confidence vote against New Prime Minister Boris Johnson, especially in light of the fact that Boris is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for, & will prove to be “a great one!” Love U.K.
Glad someone agrees, and after all he is 'The Leader of the Western World' and seems to have done OK in the business World
What was your primary reason for voting to leave?
Flipped a coin?
Nope..... I wanted the UK to control our own Borders (even though it might not now include Northern Ireland), and also stop having Brussels telling us what to do. Can you imagine Donald putting up with that??
I have a friend here in Perran who, having got his degree at Uni., really wanted to join the UK Border Force (would you believe).... sadly due to cutbacks, and the freedom of movement in Europe, there were no jobs available for him, so he ended up working on min. wage at Halfords for 5 years. Hopefully now he will be able to do the job he always wanted to
Would be very hard for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, to seek a no-confidence vote against New Prime Minister Boris Johnson, especially in light of the fact that Boris is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for, & will prove to be “a great one!” Love U.K.
Glad someone agrees, and after all he is 'The Leader of the Western World' and seems to have done OK in the business World
What was your primary reason for voting to leave?
Flipped a coin?
Nope..... I wanted the UK to control our own Borders (even though it might not now include Northern Ireland), and also stop having Brussels telling us what to do. Can you imagine Donald putting up with that??
I have a friend here in Perran who, having got his degree at Uni., really wanted to join the UK Border Force (would you believe).... sadly due to cutbacks, and the freedom of movement in Europe, there were no jobs available for him, so he ended up working on min. wage at Halfords for 5 years. Hopefully now he will be able to do the job he always wanted to
...... Every Cloud..... and all that.
This has to be a level, right?
Has to be.
Hi Hhyfty
it is actually true..... and yes obviously he would have moved to where ever he was posted.
A lot of the work down here is seasonal, and based around the holiday industry. If you want a full time year round job, you generally have to start at the bottom, even as a University graduate.
PS..... i've been too busy working two jobs Mr Hayes, and relaxing playing Poker 'til 4am...... Third job in the morning
sorry to pop into this debate but feel as a ordinary guy i should explain my side so here goes ....im not well educated and to be honest debating is not in my nature as I do not understand or even have any knowledge of what Brexit means either way and to be honest do not care one way or another as no one knows for sure how it will pan out … ive said before how ever you voted ( I voted remain.. only because better the devil you no than the devil you don't ) over the last 3yrs no one can deny this process is destroying our country as I see it ( my opinion ) as there is no trade deal even been discussed yet only a agreement to leave before any trade deal is discussed and our MPs from all parties turned down 3 times and there only response is put it back to the people or general election in the hope of over turning the result ( my opinion again ) …
Now we have all this over Boris going to the Queen being blown out of proportion its 5 days max as it co-insides with all parties having there conferences .. im starting to think I made a mistake not following the will of the people.. as a ordinary guy im confused as to why the wealthy MPs are the ones **** bent on stopping what the majority voted for when they said they would follow it thru in there elections to stay as a MPs ( my opinion again ) as ive said im not educated... who in the UK is better suited to living on a budget the ordinary guy or the MPs who we pay do right by us but live with a expense account payed for out of our tax's
The whole thing has been a disaster from start to finish. Starting from the fact that we shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place. Although there is no point in going all the way back there. Whats done is done and we are where we are. What is doing my head in lately is the number of MPs popping up saying that we have to keep no deal on the table, as a means of getting a deal out of the EU, rather than really wanting a no deal outcome. This cunning plan would have a chance of success, if nobody in the EU watched telly, or read any UK papers. The claim is untrue in many ways, not least in respect of the fact that there exists a group of people that are in favour of no deal. These people are in favour of leaving with no deal, but entering negotiations for a deal immediately we have left. If there is anyone that can see any sense in this argument, please explain it to me.
This argument could be about Tesco and Heinz beans. So lets say that just over half the country have voted in favour of Tesco ending their contract with Heinz. Clearly some don't like the blue labels, others don't like ring pulls, and think we should revert to using can openers, some complain that the EU workers that put them into the tins are taking British peoples jobs, there are objections to the amount of far ting that they cause, and the effect that this far ting has on climate change. Each side maintains that they have to keep no deal on the table, while Tesco point out that there are other beans manufacturers in the market, but admit that Heinz are their most popular brand, that cancelling the contract would put a big hole in their profits, cause a couple of stores to be closed, losing a substantial number of jobs, while sending representatives to the US to talk to Donald Trump about hormone fed, chlorine washed, genetically modified beans. At the same time Heinz are openly saying they don't need Tesco, but failure to continue the Tesco contract will mean shutting one of their factories, and the loss of many jobs. So despite the fact that Tesco have employed ex Prime Minister Boris Johnson to tour all the major UK cities dressed in a clown suit telling lies, and promoting alternative beans suppliers, you would hope that at some point common sense will prevail. In order to avoid closing a couple of stores, a factory, the loss of hundreds of jobs, and the unappetising nature of the American beans, you would hope that they would do a sensible deal. What has been evident from the start is that the EU are a rules based organisation, that cant afford to allow us to leave with such a good deal that other members would be encouraged to leave. It has never been clear on our side what sort of deal we actually want. This seems to change almost hourly, rather than daily, and varies from a close relationship to a no deal. How stupid is it for us to dispute the rules that we had a major role in formulating?
If you did go back to the beginning. David Cameron only put forward the idea of a referendum to resolve problems in the Tory Party in the belief that it would never happen as he would be able to blame his Lib Dem coalition partners for putting a stop to it. This was screwed up when winning the 2015 election with an overall majority, came as a complete surprise. No Lib Dems to blame, meant he had to go through with it. Politicians are supposed to be clever. So why didn't they agree a Withdrawal Bill prior to invoking article 50. This would have given us 2 years to negotiate a trade deal. A 2 year implementation period would have increased this to 4 years to get a deal. The option to extend the implementation period, until a deal was reached would have meant no need for the backstop. Simples.
Would be very hard for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, to seek a no-confidence vote against New Prime Minister Boris Johnson, especially in light of the fact that Boris is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for, & will prove to be “a great one!” Love U.K.
Glad someone agrees, and after all he is 'The Leader of the Western World' and seems to have done OK in the business World
What was your primary reason for voting to leave?
Flipped a coin?
Nope..... I wanted the UK to control our own Borders (even though it might not now include Northern Ireland), and also stop having Brussels telling us what to do. Can you imagine Donald putting up with that??
I have a friend here in Perran who, having got his degree at Uni., really wanted to join the UK Border Force (would you believe).... sadly due to cutbacks, and the freedom of movement in Europe, there were no jobs available for him, so he ended up working on min. wage at Halfords for 5 years. Hopefully now he will be able to do the job he always wanted to
...... Every Cloud..... and all that.
This has to be a level, right?
Has to be.
Hi Hhyfty
it is actually true..... and yes obviously he would have moved to where ever he was posted.
A lot of the work down here is seasonal, and based around the holiday industry. If you want a full time year round job, you generally have to start at the bottom, even as a University graduate.
PS..... i've been too busy working two jobs Mr Hayes, and relaxing playing Poker 'til 4am...... Third job in the morning
True but nonsense.
If I wanted to continue a ridiculous argument, I would simply ask why he just didn't move 5 years ago, and avoid the Halfords job?
However I am not particularly interested in the reason.
I was genuinely interested in the answers to the more serious questions posed earlier.
Would be very hard for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, to seek a no-confidence vote against New Prime Minister Boris Johnson, especially in light of the fact that Boris is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for, & will prove to be “a great one!” Love U.K.
Glad someone agrees, and after all he is 'The Leader of the Western World' and seems to have done OK in the business World
What was your primary reason for voting to leave?
Flipped a coin?
Nope..... I wanted the UK to control our own Borders (even though it might not now include Northern Ireland), and also stop having Brussels telling us what to do. Can you imagine Donald putting up with that??
I have a friend here in Perran who, having got his degree at Uni., really wanted to join the UK Border Force (would you believe).... sadly due to cutbacks, and the freedom of movement in Europe, there were no jobs available for him, so he ended up working on min. wage at Halfords for 5 years. Hopefully now he will be able to do the job he always wanted to
...... Every Cloud..... and all that.
This has to be a level, right?
Has to be.
Hi Hhyfty
it is actually true..... and yes obviously he would have moved to where ever he was posted.
A lot of the work down here is seasonal, and based around the holiday industry. If you want a full time year round job, you generally have to start at the bottom, even as a University graduate.
PS..... i've been too busy working two jobs Mr Hayes, and relaxing playing Poker 'til 4am...... Third job in the morning
eating chips AND putting golf balls are not 2 jobs !
Would be very hard for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, to seek a no-confidence vote against New Prime Minister Boris Johnson, especially in light of the fact that Boris is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for, & will prove to be “a great one!” Love U.K.
Glad someone agrees, and after all he is 'The Leader of the Western World' and seems to have done OK in the business World
What was your primary reason for voting to leave?
Flipped a coin?
Nope..... I wanted the UK to control our own Borders (even though it might not now include Northern Ireland), and also stop having Brussels telling us what to do. Can you imagine Donald putting up with that??
I have a friend here in Perran who, having got his degree at Uni., really wanted to join the UK Border Force (would you believe).... sadly due to cutbacks, and the freedom of movement in Europe, there were no jobs available for him, so he ended up working on min. wage at Halfords for 5 years. Hopefully now he will be able to do the job he always wanted to
...... Every Cloud..... and all that.
This has to be a level, right?
Has to be.
Hi Hhyfty
it is actually true..... and yes obviously he would have moved to where ever he was posted.
A lot of the work down here is seasonal, and based around the holiday industry. If you want a full time year round job, you generally have to start at the bottom, even as a University graduate.
PS..... i've been too busy working two jobs Mr Hayes, and relaxing playing Poker 'til 4am...... Third job in the morning
SO no jobs in border control at Perranporth International airport??
Comments
'Mad suggestion': how Tory ministers once viewed call to prorogue parliament
Boris Johnson’s move to suspend parliament as the weeks tick down to October’s Brexit deadline has left some high-profile Tory ministers in a difficult situation, given their previously candid opposition to the idea.
Matt Hancock
During the recent Tory leadership contest, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said the idea of suspending parliament “goes against everything those men who waded onto those beaches fought & died for – and I will not have it”.
Amber Rudd
Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, in June described the suspending of parliament as “absolutely outrageous” .
“The idea of leaving the EU to take back more control into parliament and to consider the idea of closing parliament to do that is the most extraordinary idea I’ve ever heard,” she said.
Sajid Javid
The now chancellor, Sajid Javid, was also vehemently opposed to shutting down parliament, during the Tory leadership campaign, saying: “You don’t deliver on democracy by trashing democracy ... we are not selecting a dictator of our country”
'You don't deliver democracy by trashing democracy.' - you can't just shut down parliament - says @sajidjavid #TeamSaj #C4debate pic.twitter.com/DOPClG3EVH
Liz Truss
The international trade secretary and longtime Johnson defender told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis in June that the idea of suspending parliament was an “archaic manoeuvre” that Johnson had already ruled out. “He wants to bring parliament with him,” she said. She was asked: “He’s definitely ruling out proroguing or suspending parliament, is that right?” Her answer was: “That’s right.”
Michael Gove
Staunchly pro-leave Michael Gove, now chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was also against suspending parliament, telling the BBC’s Andrew Marr show: “I think it will be wrong for many reasons. I think it would not be true to the best traditions of British democracy”.
Nicky Morgan
The culture secretary told the BBC’s Question Time programme that proroguing parliament was “clearly a mad suggestion”.
“You cannot say you are going to take back control … and then go: ‘Oh, by the way, we are just going to shut parliament down for a couple of months, so we are just going to drift out on a no deal’,” he said.
Andrea Leadsom
Asked in July if she would go along with a plan to suspend parliament to ensure a no-deal Brexit, Leadsom, a leading supporter of Boris Johnson, and now the business secretary, said: “No I don’t believe I would and I don’t believe it would happen.”
Matt Hancock
✔
@MattHancock
Proroguing Parliament undermines parliamentary democracy and risks a general election. I rule it out and call on all candidates to do the same
Hancock wrote to parliament parliament on 6 June, saying that “England is the mother of all parliaments – respected as such around the free world”.
“To suspend Parliament explicitly to pursue a course of action against its wishes is not a serious policy of a prime minister in the 21st Century,” the letter said.
Proroguing parliament is "the most extraordinary idea I've ever heard" and a "ridiculous suggestion" says Amber Rudd. #Ridge
“It is a ridiculous suggestion to consider proroguing parliament. For a start it would involve approaching the Queen and nobody should consider doing that,” she said.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mad-suggestion-tory-ministers-once-014651148.html
It also details how John Major used prorogation to avoid the cash for questions scandal and how it's used quite frequently.
@HAYSIE wrote......
"Liz Truss
The international trade secretary and longtime Johnson defender told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis in June that the idea of suspending parliament was an “archaic manoeuvre” that Johnson had already ruled out. “He wants to bring parliament with him,” she said. She was asked: “He’s definitely ruling out proroguing or suspending parliament, is that right?” Her answer was: “That’s right.”
I'm not sure a single soul on earth - except Liz Truss - takes an iota of notice of what Liz Truss says, does or thinks.
I'm not keen on being rude about others, especially when in effect, they can't reply, but Ms Truss is, how shall we say, "not fit for purpose" as an MP, never mind International Trade Secretary.
The poor lady is in way over her head I'm afraid. She's the best example you will ever see of The Peter Principle;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
Boris has other motives which are clear for everyone to see.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/labour-mp-says-the-monarchy-could-be-abolished-after-queen-approves-boris-johnsons-plan-to-suspend-parliament-094358752.html
Do not prorogue Parliament
Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.
Sign this petition
1,513,996 signatures
Opposition to "no deal" needs to decide on just one way forward. For me, it is as follows:-
1. Accept that the UK have voted to leave
2. Campaign for a new referendum (or a General Election, as it will amount to the same thing) on HOW (not if) we leave-not least because we will already have left before any vote takes place
3. The obvious candidates would be:-
A. No deal until such a time as a deal is reached; or
B. Leave and keep the Customs Union in place until such a time as a deal is reached
That way, we just might not ruin this country arguing whether 2016 should have happened. We can't rewrite history. But it is not too late to move forward sensibly.
And, just in case anyone thinks B wouldn't win by a landslide, just wait to see what November brings.
Will it be as bad as some say? No. But it IS likely top cause a significant drop in house prices, a massive hike in food prices, major delays in imports/exports with queues of lorries for miles, and various shortages in things we have taken for granted since the 1960s, including various medicines. That is NOT project fear. Just economic reality when people and businesses are unsure of the future.
Although it will clearly damage our economy forever.
It will cost jobs.
Ruin just in time manufacturers.
Discourage any foreign manufacturers in future from setting up in the UK with a view to accessing the EU market, something that many have done in the past.
Put many companies out of business through the extra costs involved.
On top of this the extra ongoing costs in implementing, and administrating the changes required, are likely to outstrip the cost of membership.
In addition to the fact that Ireland is likely to become a smugglers paradise, and a gateway for illegal immigrants.
It may also signal the breakup of the UK.
I wouldn't disagree with anything that you have listed, and will finish before this list turns into the biggest wall of text I have ever written.
I do not believe there will be another extension-we are likely to leave on 31st October. This will mean that the debate will inevitably change.
An election is never easy to predict. However, part of me feels that, if the fall-out is as bad as I (and almost all experts) predict, then the Conservative Party is going to implode. The odd thing is that the people who will suffer most are likely to be conservative Party voters.
It is entirely possible that some form of deal will be agreed. No-one should underestimate Boris' ability to do ANYTHING in his own interest. He is certainly not trusted by the Right wing of his own party. Of those 4 experts, I think 3 is the rank outsider.
People are increasingly advocating focussing on HOW we leave. As an example, Ken Clarke mentioned it at length in his speech yesterday.
a general election is NEVER the same as a referendum-it inevitably deals with a multitude of issues. In any event, "In or Out" is a totally different question to "Flounce off and pretend we still have an Empire".
This "Phase 1/Phase 2" thing is largely a smokescreen to prevent progress. There is nothing to stop people moving forward, provided all agree that temporary arrangements remain until replaced by permanent ones. A "No deal" leads to more problems (for all sides) than any backstop. Also people seem to forget that any backstop MUST involve disadvantages for BOTH sides, otherwise there would be no incentive to actually agree and avoid its implementation.
If my understanding of the backstop is correct then the objections to it are unwarranted.
Immediately after leaving we were meant enter an implementation period for 21 moths, during which time a trade deal would be negotiated.
Assuming that the trade deal hadn't been concluded by the end of the implementation period the backstop would come into play, allowing us to continue trading without any impediments, until the completion of the trade deal.
At which time the new trading arrangements would come into force.
The original backstop was in respect of NI, only.
After objections from the DUP, and their insistence that NI being treated differently to the rest of the UK, was unacceptable.
This resulted in the backstop being amended to cover the whole of the UK.
This is despite the fact that NI is already treated differently and undergoes some additional checks.
The backstop was only meant to be used for a short time, if at all.
It was clearly an EU concession. We wouldn't pay financial contributions while in the backstop, whereas we would in the implementation period.
The criticism over us being stuck in it seem bizarre.
This would seem to conclude that there is a possibility that we would never reach a deal, and ignore the fact that one parliament cannot bind the hands of any future parliament.
The EU have already agreed to replace it with technological solutions as and when they become available.
It is apparently possible to extend the implementation period, and avoid the backstop.
If it is likely to take say 5 years to negotiate a deal, then why not have a 5 year transition period, which could be extended further if we weren't quite there.
We would be still paying our contributions, so everyone would be happy, and know where they were.
The backstop was always meant to be a last resort.
Customs union membership alone would not suffice.
If the deal we intend to negotiate will not include the membership of both, we would have to remain in the backstop until the technological solutions became available.
No deal requires a border.
The more you explore the nitty gritty, the more obvious it becomes that the Brexit that was sold to the general public during the referendum campaign doesn't, and will never exist.
Many members of the public think that leaving in October means it is all over, when it will be just beginning.
Many think that no deal is an outcome, when the first thing we will have to do after leaving with no deal, is negotiate a deal, while coping with the chaos.
Leaving with or without a deal means years of negotiations.
MISTY4ME Posts: 2,533Member
August 28
Nope..... I wanted the UK to control our own Borders (even though it might not now include Northern Ireland), and also stop having Brussels telling us what to do. Can you imagine Donald putting up with that??
I have a friend here in Perran who, having got his degree at Uni., really wanted to join the UK Border Force (would you believe).... sadly due to cutbacks, and the freedom of movement in Europe, there were no jobs available for him, so he ended up working on min. wage at Halfords for 5 years. Hopefully now he will be able to do the job he always wanted to
...... Every Cloud..... and all that.
At last.
Really?
Are you saying that you voted to leave the EU, our biggest trading partner, with whom we conduct around half our trade, which currently provides millions of jobs, after 45 years, to help your friend in Halfords to get a better job?
All future maps of the UK should include a big arrow pointing to the Irish border, and include this text. "All Smugglers, and Illegal Immigrants This Way".
I cant believe that you really think we are taking control of our borders?
I am not even going to address whose fault I think it is, when someone with a degree takes a minimum wage job in Halfords.
I will however point out the following.
Any additional customs officers jobs are likely to be created at the ports that deal with EU trade, and Eurotunnel.
For example Dover deal with 10,000 trucks per day travelling to and from Europe. Perran, not so many.
It is therefore likely that to take advantage of the increased demand for customs officers, he may be required to move to where the vacancies are created.
Assuming he is prepared to do this, he could probably have done it 5 years ago, and avoided the Halfords job.
In which way do you think that our EU membership has caused what you describe as cutbacks?
What has Freedom of Movement got to do with anything in this context?
The destruction of our just in time manufacturing would seem a very high price to pay for a few customs jobs?
What in particular have Brussels told us to do that you disagree with, or has affected your life in an adverse way?
I am not even going to get into Donald Trump, but didn't he promise to build a border wall, and get the Mexicans to pay for it?
How is that going?
You have gone very quiet all of a sudden?
Now we have all this over Boris going to the Queen being blown out of proportion its 5 days max as it co-insides with all parties having there conferences .. im starting to think I made a mistake not following the will of the people.. as a ordinary guy im confused as to why the wealthy MPs are the ones **** bent on stopping what the majority voted for when they said they would follow it thru in there elections to stay as a MPs ( my opinion again ) as ive said im not educated... who in the UK is better suited to living on a budget the ordinary guy or the MPs who we pay do right by us but live with a expense account payed for out of our tax's
Has to be.
it is actually true..... and yes obviously he would have moved to where ever he was posted.
A lot of the work down here is seasonal, and based around the holiday industry. If you want a full time year round job, you generally have to start at the bottom, even as a University graduate.
PS..... i've been too busy working two jobs Mr Hayes, and relaxing playing Poker 'til 4am...... Third job in the morning
Starting from the fact that we shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place.
Although there is no point in going all the way back there.
Whats done is done and we are where we are.
What is doing my head in lately is the number of MPs popping up saying that we have to keep no deal on the table, as a means of getting a deal out of the EU, rather than really wanting a no deal outcome.
This cunning plan would have a chance of success, if nobody in the EU watched telly, or read any UK papers.
The claim is untrue in many ways, not least in respect of the fact that there exists a group of people that are in favour of no deal.
These people are in favour of leaving with no deal, but entering negotiations for a deal immediately we have left.
If there is anyone that can see any sense in this argument, please explain it to me.
This argument could be about Tesco and Heinz beans.
So lets say that just over half the country have voted in favour of Tesco ending their contract with Heinz.
Clearly some don't like the blue labels, others don't like ring pulls, and think we should revert to using can openers, some complain that the EU workers that put them into the tins are taking British peoples jobs, there are objections to the amount of far ting that they cause, and the effect that this far ting has on climate change.
Each side maintains that they have to keep no deal on the table, while Tesco point out that there are other beans manufacturers in the market, but admit that Heinz are their most popular brand, that cancelling the contract would put a big hole in their profits, cause a couple of stores to be closed, losing a substantial number of jobs, while sending representatives to the US to talk to Donald Trump about hormone fed, chlorine washed, genetically modified beans.
At the same time Heinz are openly saying they don't need Tesco, but failure to continue the Tesco contract will mean shutting one of their factories, and the loss of many jobs.
So despite the fact that Tesco have employed ex Prime Minister Boris Johnson to tour all the major UK cities dressed in a clown suit telling lies, and promoting alternative beans suppliers, you would hope that at some point common sense will prevail.
In order to avoid closing a couple of stores, a factory, the loss of hundreds of jobs, and the unappetising nature of the American beans, you would hope that they would do a sensible deal.
What has been evident from the start is that the EU are a rules based organisation, that cant afford to allow us to leave with such a good deal that other members would be encouraged to leave.
It has never been clear on our side what sort of deal we actually want. This seems to change almost hourly, rather than daily, and varies from a close relationship to a no deal.
How stupid is it for us to dispute the rules that we had a major role in formulating?
If you did go back to the beginning.
David Cameron only put forward the idea of a referendum to resolve problems in the Tory Party in the belief that it would never happen as he would be able to blame his Lib Dem coalition partners for putting a stop to it.
This was screwed up when winning the 2015 election with an overall majority, came as a complete surprise.
No Lib Dems to blame, meant he had to go through with it.
Politicians are supposed to be clever.
So why didn't they agree a Withdrawal Bill prior to invoking article 50.
This would have given us 2 years to negotiate a trade deal.
A 2 year implementation period would have increased this to 4 years to get a deal.
The option to extend the implementation period, until a deal was reached would have meant no need for the backstop.
Simples.
True but nonsense.
If I wanted to continue a ridiculous argument, I would simply ask why he just didn't move 5 years ago, and avoid the Halfords job?
However I am not particularly interested in the reason.
I was genuinely interested in the answers to the more serious questions posed earlier.