UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

.and just when I thought I couldn't hate the Tory government any more. blatant lies..

if there is a general election Corbyn would get hammered..again, so its a win for the Lib Dems. I despise Corbyn almost as much as Johnson because it is Corbyn who will make a no deal actually happen due to his stubborn desire for a Labour brexit, and give us Tories for the next 5 years.

Interesting - Wikipedia in it's article on British Political parties not once mentions that the modern day Conservatives are often called Tories except for the historical roots.

'The political term "Tory" dates back to the "Exclusion Crisis" which took place between 1679 and 1681 during the reign of Charles II.

Two political factions had emerged in Parliament: those who wanted to exclude Charles' brother James, the Duke of York, from succeeding the king because he was a Roman Catholic (the Whigs) and those who supported his rights to the throne (the Tories). The Tory campaign prevailed and James became the Stuart king James II.

Both terms were originally pejorative:- Whig came from an old word for yokel or "country bumpkin"; Tory is derived from the Irish Gaelic word tóraidhe, meaning outlaw.

"Simplistically you could say Tories were Cavaliers and Whigs were Roundheads," explains Dr David Seawright from Leeds University, a Conservative Party expert.

Although Tories began by supporting a Catholic heir's rights to succession, they went on to be associated with Anglicanism as well as strong monarchist and patriotic sympathies.

"Patriotism is the first, and most deeply rooted, element of the party's character," writes the party's official historian, Lord Lexden, in a 2014 guide.

The term "Conservative" first started to be used widely in the 1830s under the leadership of Sir Robert Peel. He re-interpreted the key elements of the old Tory tradition, effectively modernising the party under the banner of support for social reform and free trade.

While the Tory party under the Duke of Wellington had been strongly opposed to the Reform Bill which extended voting rights, Peel accepted it, declaring his support in the Tamworth Manifesto of 1834.

Despite the adoption of a new name, "Tory" endured and the two terms became interchangeable, with the older name appearing in official publications such as Lord Hailsham's "Toryism and Tomorrow" lecture of 1957.

In the early 20th century, both terms were briefly eclipsed by a new name, "Unionist", to reflect the party's resistance to Irish Home Rule. In the latter part of the century, "Conservative" emerged as the official name.

"Tory" was also used during the American War of Independence to refer to colonists who were loyal to the British monarchy. The term has also endured in Canada where centre-right Conservatives are known as Tories.'- BBC

{{ Today's Brexit update.

Boris has refused to be drawn on if he really would try to block Parliament by suspending it over the exit period.
Instead saying that-

"I think it's the job of everybody in Parliament to get this thing done. I think it's what the people want, I also think, by the way, it's what our friends and partners on the other side of the Channel want - they want it over. They are very enthusiastic about getting on with the future. They regard Brexit now as an encumbrance, an old argument. They want to talk about the new partnership that we're going to build."

That of course doesn't say what he is going to do about the very likely vote of no-confidence Corbyn will call.

But on Corbyn he had this to say-

"One of my many missions in life is to protect the people of this country from the appalling consequences of a Labour government," Mr Johnson said.
He added that Mr Corbyn, if in power, "would also renege, reject, revoke the mandate of the people".
"I cannot think of anything worse for democracy or for trust in politics and I very much hope that does not happen," he said.

But again, no hints of how he intends to deal with the very likely revolt from the House of Commons if Boris is heading for a No Deal exit.

And on his ever shifting odds on the chances of a No Deal he had this to say-

"I am marginally more optimistic. But, remember that all statistical estimates that I give about the chances of a deal - whether they are expressed in odds of millions to one, or getting closer, or hotter or colder, or whatever - they all depend exclusively on the willingness of our friends and partners to compromise on that crucial point and to get rid of the backstop and the current withdrawal agreement."

Except this is a lie of course, it doesn't all depend on the EU giving up the backstop- the EU have already made it perfectly clear they will happily give it up, just as soon as the UK put forward a workable, operational immediately on Oct 31st ready to go replacement for it.
The onus is entirely on us to do so, not the EU.

Oh, and remember how I said threatening to withhold the money we owe to the very people we almost immediately need to strike a good trade deal with, was probably on balance not a good idea?

'European Commission spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said the UK must honour commitments made during its EU membership, and said this was "especially true in a no-deal scenario. Settling accounts is essential to starting off a new relationship on the right foot".

and

Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament's Brexit co-ordinator, said: "If the UK doesn't pay what is due, the EU will not negotiate a trade deal."

So yeah, what a surprise.

Meanwhile in Corbyn land-

'The SNP, Liberal Democrats, Change UK, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party have all accepted an invitation to meet Mr Corbyn to discuss his proposals to avert a no-deal Brexit on Tuesday.
But Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said Mr Corbyn's plans risks jeopardising a potential vote of no confidence in the government.'

You will notice who is missing there- the Tory rebels Corbyn will also need the votes of. And that is precisely the problem Jo Swinson, new (and first female) leader of the Lib Dems objects to, that Corbyn is too objectionable and Tory rebels simply won't publicly vote with him.
It also doesn't help that Labour responded to Swinson's objections, and to the first female leader of the lib dems by calling her 'petulant'. }}

I think both Corbyn and Swinson are being petulant and this will lead to Johnson winning. Swinson will just have to put up with it for this is too important. Corbyn for better or worse is the leader of the Opposition and she has a duty to support a caretaker government.

They can get rid of Corbyn later, they cant get rid of brexit.

{{ Problem is Figg Corbyn has to get Tory votes to win a vote of no confidence. If Tories wont back Corbyn on this then its a non-starter, Corbyn will lose it.

Historically there is no rule says the leader of the opposition has to lead an interm or emergency government, and there's precedent in the past for it not being.
I'm with Swinson on this one, Corbyn needs to put his own political desire to be PM aside for once, if the purpose of an interim government is solely to request a delay to Article 50, set up the process for a 2nd referendum and then call a general election, then an interim leader can do that as well as Corbyn can.
Were it say Ken Clarke, a moderate pro-Remain Tory then the other Tories could back it. And labour and other parties can back him knowing he has no PM ambitions and no desire to try to cling onto the job or do other than see through what its supposed to do before dissolving it.

If Corbyn insists it has to be him or no one then he risks destroying any chance of it passing before it even starts. }}

I guess so but we all know he is as stubborn as a mule and will insist on himself being leader and a quick general election, both a disaster.

Johnson is making brexit 'heroes' Lords. insult to injury.

{{ Corbyn is meeting the other parties right now to discuss it- be interesting to see how it pans out today. If they make some sort of joint announcement then we have a game on, if they don't or is vague or not united then we have problems.

As it stands right now I see this playing out as Corbyn insists he has to lead an interim govt. He holds a vote of no confidence- and there is a very good chance Tory's won't vote to put him in power and it will fail. In which case options to stop Boris become severely limited.
On the basis he does scrape through a vote and removes Boris then the interim govt needs to be put in place and remember it has to then win a vote of confidence to become the government- it still has to be approved by the House. Tricky as that means the Tory rebels have to vote to put Corbyn in power, then again to approve him. That just does not seem likely to me.

But assuming he gets that far- an interim government with Corbyn in charge. Then he plans to delay article 50- its possible the EU might simply refuse that having got sick of UK game playing, but if they don't he will then call a general election as the first thing, before a 2nd referendum, on the basis he will win the election.

Again this seems unlikely to me- Corbyn remains largely unelectable to the majority of Brits. And effectively we are talking England/Wales here- Labour dont feature much in NI politics and they are as good as non-existent in Scotland these days. I cant see Corbyn beating a combination of Tories and Brexit party in England, not even close.
So most likely he will return an even stronger Boris led Tory government to power who will of course scrap any plans for a 2nd referendum as soon as they get in the door.

I don't see Corbyn's plan therefore at any stage in it as being very credible or very likely to yield success. }}

{{ I said of the Labour position earlier- If they make some sort of joint announcement then we have a game on, if they don't or is vague or not united then we have problems.

It foolishly hadn't occurred to me the result might be all of them at once!

There was an agreement, apparently, there was a strategy decided upon, but officially they wont tell us what it is, and unofficially it looks like no agreement could be made around the idea of a vote of no-confidence passing if it made Corbyn PM- so that now on the back-burner as a 'last resort' tactic.

Instead all indications that they will go down a legislative route to block Boris's No Deal.
In practise what this means is taking control of the House from the government, as happened previously over this very topic- stopping a no deal- under May.
If the opposition can gain control of the House they can control what gets tabled to debate and vote on. And they would then table a vote on legislation forcing the government to extend article 50 in the event of there being no deal in place come oct 31`st.

So step one is getting control of the House- the best bet here it seems is to attach an amendment to an existing emergency motion- normally you cant do this but you can if you can get the Speaker of the House, currently Bercow, to let you.

But as I say this route is speculative based on what little is being said following the meeting.

'Green MP Caroline Lucas said "the legislative way forward" was "the most secure way to extend Article 50, to get rid of that 31 October deadline" and stop a PM "careering towards" no deal.
Anna Soubry, the leader of the Independent Group for Change, said after the meeting those gathered had agreed how they would try to use Parliament but would not discuss the details "because we know what we're up against". '

But its clear there was no coherent position on the better tactic of a vote of no confidence. With Labour saying its still their preferred option.

'Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said a no-confidence vote "remains a last resort, if you like, to be able to enforce the will of Parliament, but the main proposal is going down the legislative route".
Ms Lucas said the option of a no-confidence vote was "still there" if the legislative route did not work, but it was "a more risky strategy".

So what to take from this- I take that Corbyn refused to budge on becoming PM and tried to argue for that route. He could not get backing for it from the rest who think he will not be able to get the necessary Tory votes to win it.
Instead they have agreed to go down the legislative route of trying to block the govenrment form being able to leave with a deal.

This is a tried route- its exactly what parliament did to May's deal. But I'm not sure it will actually stop Boris, who you can be sure has his own side scouring Parliamentary records for a way to circumvent it. }}

WTF is Johnson doing now? he said he would accept the withdrawal agreement if they drop the backstop. So now he is defying the ERG 'spartans'

{{ Because he knows, and the ERG know its meaningless. Boris and they both know the EU will not give up the backstop, they have already clearly laid out their position. It stays unless the UK can replace it on oct 31st with a working alternative ready to go.

Boris is basically just saying here "I will accept the deal once pigs fly and I am presented with the moon on a stick." }}

{{Update to today's  stop no deal Brexit parties meeting with Labour.

Corbyn says MP's will begin steps to table legislation next week.
Word is Bercow, the Speaker, is favourable to them adding it to an emergency bill.

But to get that passed will still need Tory votes. But whatever the details of the plan, enough of them would seem to be in the bag, probably.

'Tory backbencher and former attorney general Dominic Grieve refused to reveal details of the plan he is backing, but believes enough colleagues on his own benches will join him and the opposition to stop a no-deal Brexit. '

On his preferred plan of a vote of no confidence Corbyn said the legislative route was the 'first' route but the no-confidence vote remained on the table when the time was 'appropriate', which is basically his way of trying to climb down and save face on the fact his preferred option couldn't even get support among his own party, let alone the others.

Personally I think the legislative route is fraught with perils.
And my reckoning is that if they win both the vote to take control of the House business, then the vote stopping the government from a no deal, Boris will simply pull the whole rug out from under everyone and as his last act as PM will be to do what is still within his rights- call a snap general election before Brexit.
On polling he may well win it and be back as PM before Oct 31st. }}

{{ Well, well. I was wrong. Very wrong.
Boris has taken a much bigger gamble than I predicted, much, much bigger.
Rather than waiting for Labour to attempt to table legislation then calling a general election Boris has opted to go the nuclear route straight off!

He is going to suspend Parliament!

'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.'

This throws Corbyns vote of no-confidnece make me PM plan back in to the ring as pretty much the only remaining option to stop Boris.

'Tory backbencher and Remain campaigner Dominic Grieve called it "an outrageous act", and warned it could lead to a vote of no confidence in Mr Johnson, adding: "This government will come down."
"If the prime minister persists with this and doesn't back off, then I think the chances are that his administration will collapse.
"There is plenty of time to do that if necessary [and] I will certainly vote to bring down a Conservative government that persists in a course of action which is so unconstitutional."
Labour deputy leader Tom Watson tweeted that the move was an "utterly scandalous affront to our democracy".
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said MPs must come together to stop the plan next week, or "today will go down in history as a dark one indeed for UK democracy".


But I think the oddest thing here at least, as the most outrageous is Boris is actually going to shut down parliament to stop it having its say, is that the government are claiming this is juts normal business, what any new government does to hold a Queens Speech and the timing of it is purely coincidental!

Seems this fight is going down to the constitutional wire.}}

WOW!.....
no words.....
just WOW!

OK one question. Any chance the Queen will use her influence?

{{ That is a very good question Dave. The Queen will not be happy about this.
If the Queen sides with Boris you have a monarch and upper class toff PM acting to suspend the rule of the land as a means to silence the Parliament of the Common people. Infuriating remainers. And which once before in history sparked a civil war.
If she refuses to grant a suspension till after the Brexit date then Brexiteers will be up in arms and claim an unelected Monarch is blocking the will of the Common people as expressed in the referendum.
Either way either side can accuse her of being unelected and thwarting the democratic will of the people.
The Royal angle is largely why previously I had dismissed this tactic as unrealistic, I didn't think Boris, staunch Monarchist, would put the Queen into this position. I mistakenly thought his breeding would prohibit it.

It may well be that the Palace will claim the Monarch has no real power here and her granting what Boris asks is merely her performing her ceremonial duty as Head of State and reflects no personal view- I suspect that will be the pr tact the Palace will take with it.
But I dunno, involving the Monarchy in Brexit seems a bad idea to me. }}

What is the usual justification for suspending parliament? And why would the Queen's speech take up more than a few hours of their time all told?

{{ Its normal when a new government is formed to suspend parliament while the new government puts its ministers in place and prepares its legislative program with the civil servants. That program is then finally presented to the House in the Queens Speech which marks the opening of Parliament.
Its normally utterly non-contentious and takes place immediately after the election so its no big deal, the civil service have been running things during the election period anyway so another week or two while the new government gets its ducks lined up in a row makes no odds.

But this is very different I think. There is no new government, only a new PM. May also took over leadership of the conservatives from Cameron in exactly the same manner and became PM, but she never closed Parliament and never had a Queens speech because there was no need, it was a continuation of the rule of the elected party.
Boris can technically do this, but its hugely unusual in these circumstances.
As too is the length of time he says he needs for it, at least double the normal.

Weirdly the BBC royal correspondent believes politicisation of the Queen here is being overblown and there is none. She is a constitutional monarch and will act on behalf of her minster, she will advise but not block any PM.
On that I agree entirely, she will grant it and claim she is doing her duty nothing more.

But where I utterly disagree and am somewhat baffled by the BBC correspondent is when he says this-

'Had the government attempted to prorogue Parliament in another circumstance there may have been more questions about what the Queen should do.'

I am struggling to think of what other circumstances than suspending the Commons to stop it carrying out its democratic duty, he thinks would warrant questions?

And whilst he dismisses talk of the Queen being given any blame, he does so solely within the confines of precedent and the technical rules of a constitutional monarch- that's not what the average person will probably see and he doesn't seem to even consider that. }}

{{ By doing this Boris has effectively forced the hands of those who oppose him. It pretty much blocks any chance of them carrying out their preferred plan of going down the legislative route to stop him, he has removed the time to do so by doing this. Which means the vote of no confidence is shooting up the charts to no1 spot.

But the basic problem remains- backbenchers on both Labour and Tory sides.
The Tories have a majority of one, but Labour and all the opposition parties still dont make up enough to beat that one, and not all Labour MP's will vote with the party I dont think. So Tory MP's will be needed to not only make up a majority but to make up for the missing Labour votes.

For Labour backbenchers in staunch Leave seats who have built their position at a local level on the very vocal position they will uphold the referendum result. They have to choose now between the hard to resist chance to take down a Tory govenrment, or sticking to what they told their constituents who will judge them and keep them in, or throw them out a job at the next election. Bringing down the Tories might also bring themselves down at the next election.
No matter the whip from the labour front bench many of these Leave Labour MP's have refused so far to back anything which completely derails Brexit.

On the Tory side its the bogey man of making Corbyn PM. Given how the conservative and right wing press have painted Corbyn he is utterly toxic to Tory voters in every way. Any Tory MP who votes to bring down their own government in order to replace it with a Corbyn one, no matter how short term, is probably ending their political career and it really will be a vote of conviction.

Even now there is no guarantee if Corbyn insists he has to be PM that a vote of no-confidence will succeed. But it's looking like being the only roll of the dice left that Parliament can make in time if it wants to stop Boris.}}

{{Further clarification on the Queens position, though the BBC correctly still say she will do her duty and grant it they are at least now acknowledging somewhat it might not be a great idea-

'many, many people may be upset that Parliament is not going to sit at such time...Asking the Queen to give effect to this strategy would draw her into a massive political debate - something which Number 10 and the Palace are normally at great pains to avoid...If a prime minister sought a prorogation in such controversial circumstances, then it seems highly likely that the Palace would look for ways to limit the Queen being drawn into the process. This might include hesitating long enough to allow Parliament the opportunity to send a Humble Address to Her Majesty (a direct message rejecting prorogation and/or the authority of the prime minister), or agreeing a motion of no confidence."

That last part is basically the Queens wriggle room if she chooses to use it and parliament acts to use those channels, but that would risk drawing her into it even more.

Oh and from the BBC some comparison times for normal suspensions of Parliament before a Queen Speech-

'in 2016 Parliament was closed for four working days, while in 2014 it was closed for 13 days.'

Boris is saying he needs 23 days! }}

{{ Boris full letter to Parliament informing MP's of his decision to suspend Parliament-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49497667

Bits which stuck out for me among the fluff -

'A central feature of the legislative programme will be the Government's number one legislative priority, if a new deal is forthcoming at EU Council, to introduce a Withdrawal Agreement Bill and move at pace to secure its passage before 31 October.'

Note the wording here- 'if a new deal is forthcoming at EU Council', not to focus on finding an alternative solution to the backstop in order to agree a deal at the EU Council- but an implied onus on the EU council to be forthcoming with a new deal. No mention of what we need to do to get one as Boris has no alternative plan for the backstop.

'Member States are watching what Parliament does with great interest and it is only by showing unity and resolve that we stand a chance of securing a new deal that can be passed by Parliament.'

This is basically a reiteration of his claim that anyone who tries to derail his government over Brexit is disloyal and giving fuel to the enemy to use against him in negations by negating the threat of a no deal, which Boris is still claiming is threat enough to get the EU to budge. There has been no indications this is true so far and the EU position remains the same- the backstop stays unless UK can provide an alternative.

'In the meantime, the Government will take the responsible approach of continuing its preparations for leaving the EU, with or without a deal.'

It cant have escaped anyone attention in the UK that all the preparation has been for No Deal. For the very good reason Boris knows he has no resolution to the backstop and the EU wont change position without one. }}

Just think, if this is what Boris is like before we leave the EU, imagine what he's going to be like after.

{{ BBC reporting this in a tweet-

'Understand a number of privy councillor politicians have contacted palace to oppose prorogation. V unlikely to succeed.'

The privvy council is made up of usually senior and respected members of all parties from the Commons and the Lords, their job is to advise the Queen on the exercise of her Royal Perogative. They are essentially a constitutional advisory board to the Monarch.
But whats interesting here is if they were advising she oppose it then they must think there is room within her exercising of her Royal Perogative to do so.

Though the last person this was all probably a surprise too would have been the Queen. She not only gets daily reports on all activity in the Commons and the Lords, she has spies in both. No one ever knows exactly who it might be, or how often they change who it is, or how many at any given time, but there job is to provide along with the daily reports all the gossip, the back room talk and the speculation. All the juicy stuff. So I doubt this caught her off guard. Not much does. }}

{{ Things might get messy!

'If Boris shuts down Parliament to carry out his No-Deal Brexit, I and other MPs will defend democracy.
The police will have to remove us from the chamber. We will call on people to take to the streets.
We will call an extraordinary session of Parliament.' - Clive Lewis Labour MP

And this from Guardian columnist Owen Jones-

**EVERYBODY OUT ON THE STREETS, TONIGHT, 5.30PM**

**STOP THE COUP, DEFEND DEMOCRACY**

**ASSEMBLE AT COLLEGE GREEN, NEAR PARLIAMENT**

In further Monarchy news both Corbyn and Lib Dem leader Swinson have written to the Queen expressing their concerns. Pulling the Queen even more into things. }}

{{ The Queen has, as expected, agreed to Boris request to dissolve Parliament. Now its official. }}