Tomorrow will be a crunch day for Theresa May, as for a score of other Remainer Tory MPs.
It is expected that Conservative MPs will be subject to a three line whip to defend the government against Remainer attempts to sabotage Brexit. Mrs May has chosen to remain on the back benches in the Commons - and is now no different from any other Tory MP in having to comply with the whip. Boris has made it clear that voting against the government, or abstaining, means automatic deselection. Only death or serious injury is an excuse.
So it seems Mrs May has three choices tomorrow; obey the whip, literally throw herself in front of a (slow moving) bus or defy the whip and be turfed out of her Maidenhead seat in advance of the inevitable general election in a few weeks.
My bet is that she will vote for the government, that Rory Stewart won't, and will be booted out of Penrith, and of the others, some will and some won't. And I don't think there's a newspaper or columnist in the country who can call it better than that.
31 comments:
I predict that Florence of Belgravia will defect to the LibDems - where he really belongs.
Perhaps she could reprise her act of naughtily running through a wheat field.
Hopefully she won't notice the approaching combine harvester.
@DeeDee99: or Belgian citizenship, like Olly Robbins and numbers of UK lawyers?
https://www.cityam.com/uk-lawyers-taking-belgian-citizenship-in-case-of-no-deal-brexit/
".... inevitable general election in a few weeks."
They better have got themselves sorted out. We don't want any foul ups where both a Con and a TBP are competing for the same seat. Leaving voters trying to guess which has the better chance will lead to disaster.
@RAC Esq.: The media have already written TBP off, let us hope that Cummings doesn't underestimate their latent power.
There are a significant number of people who will NEVER vote tory again. Scotland has proved this is not only possible, but plausible, if you take your voters for granted, they will actively avoid your entreaties, the tories have been slowly going socialist now since the 1960's, perhaps in a race to mirror the activities of the Church Of England. Pass me the tambourine Tarquin?
The only thing that is holding that group back currently, is its newness, and like Labour in the early 20th C, given an issue where the ruling party is at sea, a good tactician will be ruthless.
I reckon that Nigel has learned a few tricks during the years.
I see that Nick Boles (ex-Tory) reckons that the three line whip signifies that the Tory Party have gone 'hard right'.
I believe the contrary. Theresa May allowed the softest of centres in a bid to keep everything together, but Brexit is not really a left/right issue. The Labour Party is also riven by internal dissent. Boris Johnson is now asserting Party discipline (alleged Spad leakers get sacked) and so you could argue that the Tory Party is now Hard Centre, or possibly Hard Centre/Right.
Boris is a bit progressive still on social matters. That, and the new drive to Leave on 31 October, could see the Tories romp home with a decent majority in the next GE.
Who voted for Dominic Cummings?
"Who voted for Dominic Cummings?"
17.4 million people...
And who voted against Dominic Cummings?
Allegedly 16.1 million people, but subtract citizens of the Irish Republic, and the total drops considerably ...
Where did it say "Dominic Cummings" on any ballot paper, you absolute prize one?
You might as well say that the glorious landslide of 1997 was one for the European Union.
Does Mr. Andrew Marr’s question about whether or not the government would abide by legislation forced through Parliament to not leave without a deal and Mr. Gove’s unwillingness to answer it imply that should Parliament vote to implement it the government will call for a GE?
Since Mr. Starmer, on the same programme has said that Labour would not vote for a GE until this legislation was on the statute book, could the government force the Queen to dissolve Parliament by refusing to abide by this legislation?
And could it be BJ’s intention to have the election take place before 31/10 so that he has a clear mandate with a Parliamentary majority that the country is leaving the EU on 31/10 and he can finally get the EU to begin negotiations?
Since this all boils down to MONEY couldn't .gov simply STOP PAYING? I reckon a good proportion of the population would be reasonably happy with 'not paying a brass farthing' to the EU - and what are the EU going to do about it? Throw us out for 'enjoying the privileges without the expense'??
Would they go to war with us to get their shekels?
People talk about 'control' and 'democracy' but they all come at the end of a bank note (or a gun) and we all know who really wields the power - the money lenders.
No. Leave/Remain? Just stop paying. Problem sorted.
Piss off Anon. It didn't say Oily fucking Robbins on any ballot papers either.
Remainiacs., Remainiacs, tens of 'em (apologies to Zulu)
I for one would excuse May voting on the grounds of death or serious injury.
Not only should Dancing Terry May be deselected and thrown out of the Conservative party, she together with her gang including commie Robbins should be prosecuted for sedition and collaborating with a foreign power.
If that were to happen it would be an indication that the Conservative party is coming to its senses and the swamp politics is finally coming to an end.
If Tommy Robinson can be imprisoned for the best part of a year for telling the truth then the rats in the HoP should be imprisoned for the rest of their miserable lives.
Dead right Ecky, and no one claimed that they voted for him either, unlike these clowns who say that "we" voted for Dominic Cummings.
They might as well though, they seem to think that they'll get back the Ducking Stool thanks to it too.
Boris will have to box real clever to get a general election. It's only the Tories want one, and not all of them. He won't get a 2/3 majority for one and the opposition will never quite agree on a no confidence arrangement.
This nonsense could run and run.
treason maybot has been misrepresenting Maidenhead for far too long, it's way past time for her to receive the order of the boot, donkey with blue rosette urgently in need of paddock feed her what she's used to very, very bland fodder but no carrots on sticks - we've all had enough of that.
If the BBC has it right, if a no confidence vote is held and lost by the Govt., there is a 14 day period to either persuade MPs to change their minds or for a coalition Govt to be formed. If not, then it’s 25 working days for a GE. Earliest GE date is then 25 October. You could say that’s the latest date to stop Brexit with the 31st being the following Wednesday.
I assume that also means party conferences will have to be cancelled. That will incur penalty charges from the venues and hotels etc. Bet Labour won’t be happy when they are allegedly in debt. That will take money out of the campaign pot.
It also forces MPs to face their local party, constituents and local protestors.
All to play for then.
Lots of people thinking that a 3 line whip on a VONC could scrape the Remainer Tories off the candidate list in the next GE. While I don't think Corbyn will be so keen to fight a GE he could set a three line whip on the VONC to scrape off Labour MPs who don't worship 'The Leader' (e.g. the Blairites) and the lure of 'purifying the Party' could be too strong to resist.
Of course this could leave a number of rightish and leftish 'independents' standing for Parliament in the next GE. How confusing.
The last snap election went well, didn't it?
You see, the broadcasters are compelled to allow the Opposition a fair hearing during the campaign.
Then there's that lady in Bristol...
@ anonymous 08:43
If his name was on the ballot I would vote for him in an instant.
And if I was as fraudulent as the left I'd vote for him ten times.
Go and cry into your pillow.
Meanwhile, in the legal world ..
http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/prorogation-constitutional-principle-and-law-fact-and-causation/
Except that the Conservatives plan to pick and choose the laws they'll follow. Is that what was meant by cutting down on red tape?
Pity Gove. Not even a snort of coke can sanitise the Yellowhammer report.
Gove said the population will get all the food they need.
800 calories a day it is then.
Pike, call in Private Walker.
It’s very odd behaviour to post to yourself on a blog.
Very ODD behaviour.
If you have medicine you should take it, sgt Wiison.
The government is being criticised by the EU and its UK collaborators for not coming up with alternatives to the backstop.
There are 4 reasons for this :
1) As described by Yanis Varoufakis, the EU’s principle negotiating tactic is to ask the opposing side to come up with a proposal and then to rubbish it. So if a solution was required for the Irish border and the UK came up with a viable proposal the EU would simply reject it whether or not it contained any merit. Thus any solution will have to be suggested by the EU in order for the EU to adopt it.
2) It seems that although the EU is seriously worried about the integrity of its SM, there is no such worry on the UK side.
This is because there is nothing to worry about.
No “backstop” is actually required. It is merely a false construct between Mrs May and the EU to provide a reason for the UK to be permanently locked into the EU.
The UK government, the Irish government and the EU (Mr. Juncker) have said they would not be putting in place a hard border thus respecting the GFA. Import duty can be handled in the same way as currently exists for differing excise duties and VAT across the border.
The integrity of the EU’s SM does not require checks at the border for product specification. It is not necessary for goods coming from China and it is not necessary for goods coming from the UK. The checks are made well away from the border starting with the importer, then by the retailer and finally by trading standards. If necessary, if it does not exist already, we can make it a criminal offence to bring non-compliant goods into Ireland.
3) The EU’s stance that there is no alternative to the backstop is illogical simply because if we leave without signing their WA treaty the EU will have to find a “solution” themselves to the backstop double quick.
4) It’s not our problem to solve the EU’s SM integrity.
The reference from Pete North seems to me to be a political opinion rather than a legal one.
The professor suggests that parliament alone is the supreme legislator, well it isn't, that would be a particular small part of parliament, aka "the executive". Whilst the whole of parliament votes on proposed legislation it is very unusual for it to be voting on legislation brought forward by any other section than the executive, even though I accept that it is possible.
So objecting to prorogation in order to prevent legislation from taking legal effect, is parliament not only trying to thwart the supreme legislative body, but also trying to thwart the electorate that permits parliament as a whole to manage the nation. If the people decide, none of the above works, it is all based on consent.
The executive controls parliament, and parliament is attempting through the courts to neuter its power. I doubt whether there are many, even on the remain side who would prefer judges to be running the country, but that is what Gina Miller enabled, even though it was through her effort bacfiring that Mrs' Maybot hasn't already got us trapped in Selmayr's web forever.
@r_writes esq
"... seems to me …." That's the problem. It undermines everything that follows.
Perhaps, but sagacity is not guaranteed when used in juxtaposition with university. And I think that he has conveniently conflated that special part of parliament, the executive" with the whole of parliament.
It is the sort of trick that globalists and warmists love to amuse themselves with.
Post a Comment