People vs Parliament

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9881074/election-choice-johnson-corbyn-majority/

A report from Missy in the UK


At the beginning of September Parliament returned from summer recess and boy has it been interesting. First of all is the news that after a summer of threatening a Vote of No Confidence Jeremy Corbyn, (as I predicted), bottled it and failed to table a Vote of No Confidence, however, it doesn’t mean that Parliament has been short of drama.

The opposition managed to take control of the order paper with the assistance of a number of Remain supporting Conservative MPs, and they passed the Withdrawal Act 2 (also known as the Benn Act), immediately after this passed in the House of Commons the PM tabled a motion for a General Election to be held on 15 October which was defeated.

This Act states the PM must ask for an extension to Article 50 by 19 October, and that it has to be until 31 January at the earliest, however, it also states that if the EU offer a longer extension he must accept it unless Parliament rejects it within 3 days. At first many thought it would be defeated as the Conservative Lords were heading for an epic filibuster on the Thursday and Friday, however, all of a sudden the filibuster was called off amidst reports that Corbyn agreed to vote for a General Election if the bill passed. The bill duly passed and the motion for a General Election was tabled again, however, Corbyn reneged and voted against it, prompting accusations of him being a chicken, the reality is most likely that Corbyn is aware of how badly he is doing in the polls and that Boris Johnson would get a good majority.

Whilst the Party Conferences were taking place after Prorogation, a number of court cases were taken out against the PM for the proroguing of Parliament. In Scotland a number of MPs went to court, and the Scottish High Court found in favour, ruling not only that the Prorogation was illegal but that the PM had lied to the Queen, though how they could say he lied to the Queen without actually calling the Queen as a witness to know what he said to her I don’t know. In England Gina Miller took a case to the High Court, which ruled that proroguing Parliament is a prerogative power making it a political process and therefore non justifiable. Both cases were appealed and last week the Supreme Court ruled that the proroguing of Parliament, whilst legal in itself, was prorogued for an excessive period of time and was therefore unlawful (as opposed to illegal). This means the Supreme Court have set a new legal precedent, and have made the proroguing of Parliament for excessive length of time unlawful.

So, last Wednesday Parliament resumed and despite the MPs saying they had to return to urgently debate Brexit they didn’t spend any time on Brexit. MP after MP lined up to have a pop at the PM and Attorney General, Boris however managed to still get the better of them. On a day that the Leader of the Opposition should have been able to have the PM on the ropes, it was the Leader of the Opposition that was on the back foot and the PM that came off the best.

Corbyn kept saying that the PM should resign, and called on Boris Johnson to resign several times, the response of the PM was to refuse to resign and tell Corbyn that if he wanted to get rid of him to agree to a General Election. The PM gave a one time offer that he would accept a Vote of No Confidence from any party that had the courage to call it, many were hoping the DUP would gazump Corbyn and call the vote, they didn’t however. Despite all opposition MPs saying that Boris Johnson should resign and wasn’t fit to be PM they stopped short of calling a Vote of No Confidence to trigger an election. The Government tabled a motion to recess Parliament for their Party Conference next week, they are the only party who have yet to have their Conference, and predictably the opposition spitefully blocked it, however, the Conservatives will go ahead with their conference in spite of it, but it is rumoured that the opposition will do everything they can to disrupt it.

It was reported today that the SNP have come to an agreement with Labour whereby they will support a Government of National Unity with Jeremy Corbyn as PM in return for Corbyn approving a second independence Referendum. This Government will be formed for a period time to gain an extension, have a second referendum which they hope will vote Remain so they can then revoke Article 50 before holding a General Election. This of course will have to depend on rebel Conservative MPs (who have mostly indicated they would abstain or vote against the Government, some even saying they would prefer a hard left Marxist Government to leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement), and the Liberal Democrats who have indicated they wouldn’t support Jeremy Corbyn as PM, but would support someone else. And here is where we get into the most likely campaign strategy for the Government if they can force a General Election in the next couple of months. Whether or not they extend Article 50 the Government’s strategy is most likely going to be the people vs Parliament angle, with Boris Johnson and the Conservatives on the side of the people and the rest the elitist establishment who want to tie the UK into the EU Empire.

This strategy could work, and I am sure those working in Number 10 are gathering the soundbites, videos etc to use, and the most useful for them will be from the Liberal Democrats. Jo Swinson, the Lib Dems leader, has already stated on the record that she would not accept a second referendum outcome for Leave, which most are using as justification for not supporting a second referendum as they believe she would not implement such a vote if she was leader, further the Liberal Democrats have voted to revoke Article 50 if they become Government without a vote, (so this contradicts their previous policy of a second referendum), lastly Guy Verhofstadt spoke at the Liberal Democrat Conference and his speech talked about the future EU Empire, now it is hard to know if the words were chosen incorrectly due to English being his second language, but regardless it does play into Leavers hands on the future empirical ambitions of the EU.

Boris Johnson’s reference to the Benn Act as the Surrender Act is, I believe, part of them positioning for a General Election campaign, it angers the opposition and the more it angers them the more that the PM uses that phrase and the more support he gets. Surrender Act was trending on Twitter when Boris used it, and many Leavers (not just Conservatives) are using the phrase. That is a key thing, May did not have the ability to bring together people from different political views, Boris however is managing to do that, a number of voters in the North of England who are being interviewed are saying they have never voted Conservative, but will vote for Boris.

All in all, I believe that sometime in the next 2-3 months there will be an election in the UK, and the Conservatives will be using the People vs Parliament strategy, it won’t be a formal or official slogan (that is most likely to be Get Brexit Done – which has also been trending on Twitter) but everything said by the Conservatives will be underpinning that message.

 

Next Post
Leave a comment

36 Comments

  1. Gezza

     /  29th September 2019

    Mind boggling, these goings on 😳

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  29th September 2019

      Wel done, btw, Missy. I dunno how anyone can keep all that together in their head, let alone set it all out in print. 👍🏼

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  29th September 2019

        Cheers.

        I have missed some of the shenanigans (as Duker pointed out below), mostly because I was on my late summer holiday for three weeks so was busy catching up when I got back, and didn’t read everything, so missed some of it all.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  29th September 2019

      Not really. The Conservatives were going to get thrashed electorally under May. Boris is just doing what he has to do to win. And his opposition are doing absolutely everything possible to obstruct him.

      How bizarre that the courts are ruling it is legal for Parliament to perpetuate itself beyond the wishes of the government.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  29th September 2019

        Yes.

        Reply
      • Pink David

         /  29th September 2019

        “How bizarre that the courts are ruling it is legal for Parliament to perpetuate itself beyond the wishes of the government.”

        The Supreme Court is a creation of Tony Blair. It should not be that much of a surprise that it decided for itself to become a political operation.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  29th September 2019

          Not really a creation- as it already existed as the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. In effect it was just a rename and a new (old) building to call their own. For the Commonwealth the Privy Council (court) still exists, and they are just a small panel of the same Supreme Court Judges.
          If prorogation helped Remain in any way , those same judges would have been unanimous the other way.
          Johnson may get his revenge, as the Queen ( but in reality advised by the PM) who will replace Baroness Hale who is retiring this year. The Lord Chief Justice- who decided against judicial interference- will get a promotion ( as he may have anyway) , plus straight into the President of the SC job, to put out the noses or the existing judges who may have thought that the most senior would get that job.

          Reply
  2. Duker

     /  29th September 2019

    Time line is a bit incorrect . Scottish High Court found for Boris but then with amazing judicial speed a Scottish appeal was heard AND decided against Boris by 2 to 1. Also missed out was the Belfast Court decision which also ruled against judicial interference in political matters.
    The speed at which hearings were held and decisions made ( England high court decision should have gone to England Court of Appeal first before UK Supreme court, although the High Court case was decided by 3 Appeal Judges) and the reversals indicates the judges were using political judgements as of course prorogation was often used for political reasons. Other Commonwealth countries have used it just after an election to prevent losing a no confidence motion and losing office.
    As always with Brexit , the old rules are tossed aside in order that Remain gets its way

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  29th September 2019

      Opps , the Scottish Appeal of 3 judges was unanimous.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  29th September 2019

      “As always with Brexit , the old rules are tossed aside in order that Remain gets its way”

      There is only one rule that matters. There must be no Brexit. They will quite happily burn everything else to achieve this.

      Boris has a chance of redrawing UK Politics for generations, but I am skeptical that he’s up to it. His history has been as a mediocre political survivor that adjusts his beliefs to suit his best advantage.

      Reply
    • Missy

       /  29th September 2019

      Apologies, I was on holiday when it was all happening and missed that first court ruling.

      I think you are wrong with regards to Boris being mediocre, I think he was stifled a bit previously. He is clever, but more than that he is wiling to do what he has to, and I think he has more determination than Corbyn.

      Reply
  3. Pink David

     /  29th September 2019

    This is a very balanced view of some of the things that are underpinning these events;

    Deplorables: Trump, Brexit and the Demonised Masses

    Reply
    • I don’t think you can characterise Spiked as offering a balanced view on anything. It has a strongly conservative/libertarian standpoint and is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, which goes to explain why Spiked is fiercely pro-Brexit and pro-Trump.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  30th September 2019

        Don’t forget the sheriffs of America. One of their delegation said outside the White House that they ‘had the presidents back.’ Oh, by the way…libertarianism is the most politically balanced philosophy in my opinion. It starts with not thieving your money to give to others. In civvy street that is a criminal offence. In politics it’s a virtue.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  30th September 2019

          That was just a group of Republican Sheriffs sucking up to Trump – remember Sheriffs are elected too
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-photo-opportunity-sheriffs/

          This is the Official US Sheriffs national organisation
          https://www.sheriffs.org/
          That event not mentioned but these are their PR mentioning Trump
          https://www.sheriffs.org/search/node/TRUMP
          Notice the difference

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  30th September 2019

            ”SHERIFF HODGSON: I know I speak for these sheriffs and American sheriffs across the country that you’ve done more in two years than the past administrations and Congress has done for 20 years, Mr. President.

            THE PRESIDENT: Man.” (👍)

            ”This is the Official US Sheriffs national organisation.”

            ‘Have a guess why you won’t see support for Trump on their official site.’

            ”That event not mentioned but these are their PR mentioning Trump
            Notice the difference.”

            Nope..all I notice is a list of reasons why Sheriffs across the US of A would have his back.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  30th September 2019

              No it’s not the Official group,..nothing mentions the NSA by name
              “Since its founding in 1940, the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) has been the one voice of the nation’s sheriffs in Washington, DC. ”
              And Sheriff Hodgson
              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M._Hodgson
              He’s not listed on the NSA executive group or board of directors.
              So it shows once again ..that’s it’s just a small group of Republican Sherrifs sucking up to Trump

            • Corky

               /  1st October 2019

              Not true. You are missing the undercurrent of what is being said.

              This is a fact: The Obama administration meddled in the affairs of law enforcement and stopped them doing their job correctly in favour of illegal immigrants getting a free ride. That is just one enforcement agency.

              Again:

              ”SHERIFF HODGSON: I know I speak for these sheriffs and American sheriffs across the country that you’ve done more in two years than the past administrations and Congress has done for 20 years, Mr. President.”

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/09/obama-border-patrol-chief-trump-stay-course-border-wall/

              Quote:

              ”When Morgan was pushed out in January 2017, it was reported that the Border Patrol union, which has been loyal to Trump and his policies since his candidacy, didn’t believe Morgan was making border security a priority and lobbied the administration for him to be replaced.”

              Morgan was replaced the minute Trump took office.

              One of many examples of why law enforcement is beholdent to Trump. And an example of how swiftly Trump ‘cleaned house.’

            • Duker

               /  1st October 2019

              Hodgson doesnt represent the Sheriffs of America, what ever it is its a self appointed group.
              Sheriffs are generally republican as its mostly rural , the Police Chiefs who represent the far larger population of cities and towns ( plus Urban Sheriffs) wouldnt be seen anywhere near the White house.
              Thats all you need to know. The rest is Trump Bumpf, he has these specially selected groups all the time
              No need to look for undercurrents – you are drowning in fake stories anyway
              BTW . Sheriff Hodgson of Bristol County Mass , mostly runs the County jail as the cities and towns within it have their police force a very common situation all over the US
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_agencies_in_Massachusetts

            • Corky

               /  1st October 2019

              ”Hodgson doesn’t represent the Sheriffs of America, what ever it is its a self appointed group.”

              If I was a sheriff, I would take offence at a group not officially representing me, making political statements on my behalf, even if I supported Trump.

              Therefore, if the Official US Sheriffs National Organisation was truly politically neutral they would no doubt have released a statement acknowledging that Hodgson doesn’t speak for all sheriffs or their organisation.

              Can you point to that statement? If not, by default the organisation supports Hodgson.

            • Duker

               /  1st October 2019

              Are you really that deluded. Nowhere do they claim to represent the formal organisation. they are just Sheriffs!
              It was YOU who said it was ‘Sheriffs of America’
              Any way they are political organisation, thats a primary aim. However they dont claim to be partisan one.

            • Corky

               /  1st October 2019

              ”That was just a group of Republican Sheriffs sucking up to Trump – remember Sheriffs are elected too.

              https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-photo-opportunity-sheriffs/

              This is the Official US Sheriffs national organisation
              https://www.sheriffs.org/

              Suggestion: re read what you have written. Then, especially, re read what I have written.

              Get a move on in case Gezza is made a moderator. You will probably be for the chop.

            • Gezza

               /  1st October 2019

              Most unlikely! And the surest way to stuff this blog would be over-sensitive, over-zealous moderation. Most of the regulars here are capable of arguing AND keeping their tempers anyway.

      • Pink David

         /  30th September 2019

        “It has a strongly conservative/libertarian standpoint and is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, which goes to explain why Spiked is fiercely pro-Brexit and pro-Trump.”

        Bahahaha!

        Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked is a Marxist. Most of the staff used to work for Living Marxism for crying out loud.

        Almost everyone interviewed in that production was very much of the left. You would know that if you had bothered to watch it.
        Current feature on Spiked is an interview with Kate Hoey, is she now a conservative/libertarian?
        https://www.spiked-online.com/podcast-episode/people-desperately-want-their-vote-to-matter/

        Of course, you can just call up the left’s boogeyman (Koch vs Soros), then ignore any useful information. That’s much easier that actually thinking for yourself isn’t it.

        Reply
        • Thanks Pink David but I’ll let the facts speak for themselves:

          Spiked has a strongly conservative/libertarian standpoint and it expresses the interests of a privileged upper middle class who use demands for preferential treatment for their designated identity group—based on ethnicity, sex or sexual preference—to further their own careers.

          Spiked sold out on its Marxist origins back at the end of the 1990s when its editor Mick Hume wrote that Marxism was irrelevant because there was no possibility of a politics based on the working class. Brendan O’Neill stopped claiming he “stood on the left” in 2012 and Frank Furedi only calls himself a “libertarian Marxist” when it suits his identity-politics purposes.

          What’s more, both Hume and O’Neill are deep in Murdoch’s pockets and other right-leaning banners: Hume writes for The Times and The Sun and O’Neill for The Australian, The Spectator, and The American Conservative.

          The current right-wing bourgeois politics at Spiked is self-evident

          https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiked-magazine/

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/us-billionaires-hard-right-britain-spiked-magazine-charles-david-koch-foundation

          https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/05/30/spik-m30.html

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  30th September 2019

            “facts ”

            This word means something different to what you are using it for. I’ll leave you to your illusions, like I said, at least it saves you from having to think for yourself.

            Reply
  4. Pink David

     /  29th September 2019

    “Guy Verhofstadt spoke at the Liberal Democrat Conference and his speech talked about the future EU Empire, now it is hard to know if the words were chosen incorrectly due to English being his second language, but regardless it does play into Leavers hands on the future empirical ambitions of the EU.”

    Well, maybe you might give him the fig leaf of not understanding english to know what the word Empire means, but the LD conference knew what it meant, and they cheered the ceiling down in response.

    Fun fact: In a poll of members of the UK Labour Party, 66% are ashamed of being British. I imagine you might get a similar result from LD’s.

    Reply
  5. Missy

     /  29th September 2019

    A report this morning suggests that the Remainer MPs are planing to introduce a law to allow the Speaker send the letter to the EU asking for an extension, essentially give the authority of the PM to the speaker. They have well and truly politicised the role of the speaker all to get their own way.

    Also reported this morning, No. 10 is launching an investigation into MPs collusion with the French and EU over the Benn bill and stopping Brexit.

    Already Jo Swinson, Lib Dems, has been outed as sending a letter on behalf of British people to the EU requesting they reject any agreement that the PM takes to them and instead force an extension.

    In argument with the PM Philip Hammond reportedly told Boris Johnson that his EU lawyers said that the Benn Bill didn’t go against the UK constitution, thereby confirming they used EU lawyers to write the bill. Oliver Letwin reportedly had a number of meetings with the French in the week prior to the Benn Bill being tabled, and finally it has been suggested that Tony Blair has not only discussed what the UK negotiations should be with the EU, but is being funded by the EU to bankroll the court cases. Some of these allegations are plausible, some I think are in Conspiracy theory territory, but it is made for a very distrustful atmosphere.

    This week will be key.

    Reply
  6. Missy

     /  30th September 2019

    Whilst the left and Remainers get upset at the description of the Benn Act as the Surrender Act (and now the letter to ask for an extension as the Surrender Letter), they are rushing around defending this banner put up in Manchester this morning.

    Reply
  7. Trevors_elbow

     /  1st October 2019

    No election…what a surprise. Corbyn and the remainers are gutless. They could campaign on a second referendum if elected…..why wont they? Because they fear losing.

    Cromwell’s advice should be heeded but Remainers wont listen… the will of the people frustrated. This will not end well.

    Reply
    • Missy

       /  2nd October 2019

      Exactly. I think the plan was to call a Vote of No Confidence tomorrow during Boris’s Conference Speech, and the Conservatives are prepared, however, all indications are that it won’t happen.

      The main problem is that all is not well in the Remain Alliance, Labour refuse to countenance anyone by Corbyn being an interim PM in their so-called Government of National Unity whilst Jo Swinson, who is getting a little above herself, is adamant it will be anyone but Corbyn.

      The other potential factors as to why they won’t call the vote are the following:
      1. As you say, they fear losing, and interestingly every time they try to attack Johnson his popularity rises in the polls. Corbyn is the least popular Leader of the Opposition since it started to be recorded, and half of the Lib Rem MPs are sitting in their seats fraudulently having been elected on either Labour or Conservative manifestos, but they continue to refuse by elections.
      2. They won’t have the numbers to pull together an alternative Government and fear that the resulting election campaign could nullify the Benn Act (or Surrender Act as we are calling it, because the Remainers hate that) thereby leading to an accidental no deal withdrawal
      3. They don’t actually have the numbers. It is believed that up to at least 10 Labour MPs would vote with the Government to get Brexit done, and it is possible that the majority of those of the Conservatives that lost the whip, but are sitting as independents not Lib Dems, will either abstain or vote with the Government to avoid Corbyn as PM.

      The theory seems to be that if they wait until after October 31 then Boris will be blamed for not leaving the EU and ultimately lose significantly at the polls, however, this is a risk that could (and possibly will) backfire on the Remainers, and Labour in particular. Some are starting to wake up to the fact that the people won’t be blaming Boris for not leaving the EU, but rather all the MPs that have done everything to prevent him from doing it, and there is now a fear that a GE will lead to a large majority for him regardless of when it is.

      The people are truly angry at these MPs, and even some on the Remain side are not happy at the way they are working to overturn a democratic vote. It will be them it does not end well for.

      Interesting times ahead. Tomorrow in Parliament should be interesting. Most of the Conservative MPs are still in Manchester, and Boris is due to give his keynote speech, meanwhile Dominic Raab is filling in for him at Prime Ministers Questions, and as convention dictates Corbyn will not appear and a senior Labour MP will fill in for him. Many are looking forward to it as Corbyn has got Diane Abbott to fill in for him, she won’t come out of this well at all.

      Reply
  8. Missy

     /  6th October 2019

    Another court case has been taken against the Prime Minister in Scotland, though I am not sure what this one is about as the Remainers are starting to get more and more hysterical as the PM continues to assert the UK will leave the EU on 31 October.

    Yesterday in court papers from the PM’s office allegedly said he would ask for an extension from the EU as required by the Surrender (sorry Benn) Act, though it wasn’t clear if the papers specified he would ask for an extension or simply stated he would comply with the law and the media are interpreting that he will send the letter asking for an extension. This of course has created speculation as to how he can ask for an extension (which the EU will most likely grant, since the MPs who wrote the Benn Act got those assurances before tabling the Bill) and still leave on 31 October, but there has been a couple of suggestions put forward.

    1. it is speculated that Hungary will veto an extension, this is due to the Hungarian Foreign Minister and Ambassador attending a meeting in the Cabinet Office yesterday. I think this is unlikely due to Hungary not vetoing when it was speculated previously, but mostly because I don’t think the PM would be so open about it, he has kept his cards close to his chest so far.

    2. The second possible way is that he will write the letter requesting the extension, but make it clear that he will not negotiate further, will not hold a second referendum (that the EU want), and will disrupt the EU in the time the UK remains after 31 October. It has been suggested that the UK will veto the budget, and other major decisions, and will send a Eurosceptic Commissioner to sabotage their portfolio in the Commission (Nigel Farage has been mooted as possible).

    3. One further suggestion is that to comply with the law the PM will ask for a 59 minute extension. As it stands the UK is set to leave at 11.00pm on 31 October GMT, and the Benn Act says the extension must be between 11.00pm GMT 31 October and 11.00pm 31 January GMT. This will mean that the UK will still leave on 31 October.

    There have been a number of other legal loopholes in the Benn Act pointed out (the general rule that quick law is bad law seems to be holding up with this one), so it will be interesting to see what the PM and Dominic Cummings, and their excellent Constitutional Lawyer and adviser Nikki Da Costa, come up with.

    One thing is certain, Leo Varadkar appears to have overplayed his hand this week in rejecting the PM’s new proposals outright, something that has convinced many that the backstop was always going to be permanent.

    I think the EU may have underestimated the current PM, he isn’t as likely to roll over as the previous PM, though they are counting on the Benn Act to be the salvation to either keeping the UK in the EU or at least extending it for another few months or years, but if the PM does go into a disruptive mode as threatened they may regret that.

    Reply
  9. Missy

     /  6th October 2019

    It is expected that the PM will prorogue Parliament next week ahead of a Queen’s speech on 14 October, this will be interesting if he tries it, however, Parliament will be unable to do anything as the Supreme Court decision was on the length of prorogation not the prorogation in itself, and this time it will be for a few days (3 I think).

    It is also speculated that in the Queen’s speech will be the repealing of the Benn Act, if this is it will be solely to trigger a vote agains the Queen’s Speech which is a confidence motion, and allegedly the PM can call a General Election as a result. So the opposition who don’t want a General Election just yet will either have to vote for it or abstain to allow it to pass if they don’t want to force an election just yet.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s