Westminstenders: Charge!!!!

[RedToothBrush]

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered.
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell.
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

If a Judge has already dismissed it, it's abuse of process to try to bring it again too. It wouldn't get through the Court.

Apologies, I'm posting piecemeal as I'm currently clearing an allotment!

I am not convinced it follows that even if the Government, in the shape of TM, acted unlawfully according to UK constitutional law in its request for the Art 50 extension that the extension itself is nullified.

It is not the case that 240 current Labour MPs would choose blocking Brexit and dumping Corbyn in favour of a "Unity" candidate who represents only Remainers. However they would be far more likely to use the cover of a VoNC to get a GE whatever their and / or their constituency's Brexit stance.

If BJ tries to pull the fast one with DC's cunning stunt (to quote speverend Rooner) to call the election whilst No Deal is happening, then I can't help but wonder if the EU would unilaterally grant a short extension to give the incoming govt with its popular mandate the ability to act.

The EU legally can't unilaterally grant an A50 extension

The UK has to ask for one, or agree to one if offered

@Icantreachthepretzels

I am completely anti-no deal but I can't honestly see how it can be left out of any 2nd referendum.

How would you position the fact that it is left out to the fairly significant section of the population and Parliament that support leaving without a deal?

Surely this is twisting democracy to suit what one portion of it wants?

Especially if Remain is an option when the first referendum rejected that.

I'm struggling to see how a logical, unbiased argument can be made for including Remain but leaving out a No Deal transition.

Of course once No Deal has actually happened, it closes off many options

Our future negotiations with the EU would be on a completely different basis and would happen only after we had signed up to the 3 core principles of the WA

Nobody seems to mention the millions member states have had to spend to prepare for Brexit. If the UK ends up remaining how are those countries going to feel? And what will Britain's relationship with the EU be then - another 40 years of petulance? I'd imagine the EU's view of Brexit is now - regretable but ultimately glad to be rid of the headache.

How would you position the fact that it is left out to the fairly significant section of the population and Parliament that support leaving without a deal?

I guess you're in favour of a referendum on bringing back the death penalty?

The general public hold a lot of pretty unsavoury views, especially if you view "public opinion" through the prism of "people who turn out to vote" (older people are over represented in this group and younger people underrepresented). I think it would not be difficult, given a Brexit style campaign, to get a majority for capital punishment.

My view has always been that a sane and responsible government would never hold a referendum on which one option involved breaching an international treaty.

So apparently there will be a new service for delivering urgent medical supplies after Brexit:

www.gov.uk/government/news/new-service-to-deliver-urgent-medicines-and-medical-products-into-uk?utm_source=dfde55ea-8de0-4f41-955b-d3becae59dfd&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

The contract notice has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union and potential bidders have until 21 August to submit proposals. The successful provider(s) are expected to be announced in September.

Make of that what you will.

Make of that what you will.

Performance art.

Cost to the taxpayer = £4 million.

They are caught in a trap between needing to do big expensive stuff to make Brexit work, and needing to persuade Brexit voters (who tend to be small government fans) that they are not spending a lot of their money.

Naturally this is all nonsense.

The EU legally can't unilaterally grant an A50 extension

but when deadlines loom, they have a habit of stopping the clocks to continue negotiations.

Just saying.

I have to say putting myself in the shoes of someone who voted Leave in 2016 I can see why they would feel democracy was failing them given:

• There was a majority for Leave in a referendum that, while legally only advisory, they were told would be followed

• Parliament voted to kick off Article 50 knowing that there was a chance, however small they felt it to be at the time, that we could end up leaving with no arrangements in place

• In a snap election a party with a 'no deal is better than a bad deal' manifesto was returned, while not as a majority, still as the Govt with a C&S deal with another party that agreed

• That Parliament had rejected the 'deal' as not good enough so given the ruling party had a 'no deal is better than a bad deal' manifesto leaving on no deal should be the default

• That the numbers to win a VoNC and set up a GNU only existed because MPs who stood on the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' manifesto then didn't follow this in reality (but also didn't step down for by-elections).

I'm as anti-no deal as anyone but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to argue this one TBH.

There are all sorts of mistakes that people have made here - Cameron should never have said the referendum would be followed when it was only advisory, May should not have put 'no deal is better than a bad deal' in the manifesto when there was no agreement in the party that this was true, etc. However as a voter you would feel totally outraged.

I don't agree with the whole 'betrayed' narrative (and definitely not when it strays into Parliament vs the People etc) but I can absolutely see why some Leavers feel that way.

If there is no mandate for no deal, how is there a mandate for a People's Vote with a GNU?

Again, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. IMO we still have to have some kind of logical consistency in our positions.

Misti

I guess you're in favour of a referendum on bringing back the death penalty?

No, but this is a totally different situation.

A more comparable situation would be that we had already had a referendum on the death penalty (result to bring it back by 52%). The Govt had a manifesto stating they would bring back the death penalty. A way forward was brought to Parliament which was voted down three times as being a bad solution. Parliament couldn't form a majority on whether to do it by the initial proposal which had been voted down, electric chair or by lethal injection, with a large contingent wanting another referendum and some standing on a position. A GNU is formed and they offer a referendum between 'no death penalty' and the solution that has been voted down three times.

I don't support the decision to hold the EU referendum in the first place, I don't support Cameron telling people it would be followed when it was only advisory, etc. But we are where we are now...

My view has always been that a sane and responsible government would never hold a referendum on which one option involved breaching an international treaty.

This is a good point. I think then the Remain side need to form a watertight legal position as to why no deal breaches the GFA as that's the only objectively logical way to argue leaving 'no deal' out.

I'm playing devil's advocate as the Remain side need to really think through and be one step ahead of the arguments.

In a snap election a party with a 'no deal is better than a bad deal was returned.

This argument needs to be scotched, redwood was using it this am agon. The Conservative manifesto and 12 point briefing document emphasised ' The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit.'

Yes, the manifesto small print with a proliferation of 'buts' said '.. but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK. But we will enter the negotiations in a spirit of sincere cooperation and committed to getting the best deal for Britain'.

There is no way that a reading of the paragraph containing that text could be taken as a promise to exit with no deal or that a vote for the manifesto was a vote for no deal.

Labour ruled out no deal explicitly and with the lib dems, snp, greens and plaid that was more than 94% of voters, 30 million people voting for an orderly Brexit or no Brexit.

No Deal breaches the spirit & intentions of the GFA, but NOT the legal text

because back in 1998 when it was negotiated, Brexit was not remotely on the political agenda and it was assumed the UK would remain in the EU permanently

Even the preamble to the legal text refers to both countries being in the EU
Hence it never occurred to anyone to specify no goods borders etc, because all that is mandatory for members

Politically / imternationally, having an NI goods border causes great problems,
e.g. with the EU
and the Irish-American Caucus would likely block any FTA unless the UK puts the goods border in the Irish Sea

Boris Johnson edits speech video to remove his first broken promise

Rewriting history - get used to this
Two crucial words deleted: "this week"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-edits-speech-video-18945470.amp?twitterr_impression=true

There's a couple of important words missing from the new version of his Downing Street speech

Boris Johnson appears to have edited footage of his first speech as Prime Minister - removing a reference to his first 'broken promise'.
The PM said the new video was his "vision for Britain", but the footage has been doctored to remove two important words from his NHS funding pledge.

In the new version, Johnson says: "My job is to make sure you don't have to wait three weeks to see your GP.
"And we start work ...with 20 new hospital upgrades and ensuring that the money for the NHS really does get to the frontline."

But in his speech, delivered on the steps of Number 10, he made a further promise which has been sent down the memory hole.

He said: "My job is to make sure you don't have to wait three weeks to see your GP.
"And we start work this week with 20 new hospital upgrades and ensuring that the money for the NHS really does get to the frontline."

It’s ridiculous how the Tories can talk about increasing spending and even borrowing in today’s news, but if that would be Labour they would be accused of living in fairyland. The current government also seems to want to reduce taxes for the high earners and with Brexit looming I really want to know where their money will come from.

I really want to know where their money will come from.

If government spending does not result in increased productivity then ultimately it will come from the tax payer one way or another, via taxation, austerity or inflation.

- In a snap election a party with a 'no deal is better than a bad deal' manifesto was returned,

Nope. No no no. This is completely wrong.

The party which ran on no deal being better than a bad deal lost their majority.

You are forgetting that the current govt is a minority government. Minority governments cannot implement their manifestos with some dilution and compromise.

With = without in that last sentence!

Nobody seems to mention the millions member states have had to spend to prepare for Brexit.

What is there to say ? It gets added to the UKs exit bill one way or another.

Which will be the next big discussion after we've no dealed. Bearing in mind until the UK has agreed to pay it, there's no way forward.

My view has always been that a sane and responsible government would never hold a referendum on which one option involved breaching an international treaty.

Because international treaties are - what? The word of God? They’re just as subject to democracy as any other aspect of public policy.

While the EU do have a tendency to stop clocks and try to find solutions involving fudge I think in this case and where the UK is now, patience is all but gone.
IF it could see that the UK was struggling to get a few niceties/procedures done in time, a pause or delay might be considered but for 3 years the UK has been acting in very bad faith, insulting, undiplomatic and there is no sign of any form of unity within the UK. It is not reasonable for the EU to simply put everything on hold for another 3 or 4 years while the UK gets its act together.

In October last year the guy in charge of Rotterdam port pointed out that the modifications necessary were costing the Dutch taxpayers around £700 per person. Obviously it would not be seen as a direct figure but in schools, doctors, whatever not getting funding they might ordinarily get. I have not looked at the press in other countries specifically for it but I would bet there is good mileage to be had to point out to EU citizens how much Brexit is taking from their individual economies.
One can only wonder how long it will be for some in the EU to take Boris at his word and 'Fuck UK business'. November 1st might be a good start date. People are happy to boycot a particular shop if you get bad service, the UK is putting itself in that position.