Correct.
And what happens if there is no royal assent for the extension bill?

We cut off her head.

And what happens if there is no royal assent for the extension bill? — Galuchat

There will be.

Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1707, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality. — https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/

Indeed.

Due to past treaties I suppose. So I guess that means only when zero treaties apply, violence begins.

I’m still very sceptical of the Brexit fear mongering. Economic collapse, violence along borders—I don’t see how these fears are warranted, and in fact has contributed to the uncertainty over the past few years. I guess time will tell.

Who said anything about the Monarch refusing royal assent?

And what happens if there is no royal assent for the extension bill? — Galuchat

There will be. If not, we'll cut off her head. Or maybe stick a red-hot poker up her arse, like we did to Edward II.

I was referring specifically to the sentence that states Royal Assent to be a formality. It's passed both Houses and so will receive Royal Assent and become law.

You presuppose it is impossible the bill wouldn't receive Royal Assent without the Monarch refusing assent.

You presuppose it is impossible the bill wouldn't receive Royal Assent without the Monarch refusing assent. — Galuchat

No, I'm presupposing that the bill will receive Royal Assent because it's passed both Houses.

You presuppose much.

You presuppose much. — Galuchat

It's a warranted presupposition. There's no reason to believe that it won't receive Royal Assent. It's passed both Houses.

It's also by the same reasoning that I am warranted in believing that the Queen will appoint as Prime Minister the leader of the party which commands a majority in Parliament after the next General Election (or the leader of the largest party should Parliament be hung and a majority attained by coalition or confidence and supply agreement), and not some random backbencher in a minority party.

But perhaps you could be a little less vague and explain to me what it is you think could happen to prevent the Bill receiving Royal Assent because as it stands I have no idea what you're trying to suggest.

You presuppose it is impossible the bill wouldn't receive Royal Assent without the Monarch refusing assent. — Galuchat

Well, I suppose we could end up a republic before the Queen gives Royal Assent, but that's not a realistic possibility. The only realistic possibility is what Micheal just said.

Well, populism once again reared its ugly head. Now, thanks to all the social media, it's easier than ever to brainwash people (the so called 'hoi polloi' :) ) Empty phrases, like: "take back control", "unelected bureaucrats" etc. put the masses in 'frenzy mode'. Some people need to learn things the hard way in the absence of any sort of insight. I think EU will be better off without UK, as long as UK is stuck in the past thinking they are a great empire. Just let them sober up and then we can consider letting them in again but without all the undeserved benefits they are enjoying now.

Just let them sober up and then we can consider letting them in again but without all the undeserved benefits they are enjoying now

Bring it on, anything is better than this. Remember it is only about a third of the population that has been brainwashed, another third is looking on in horror and astonishment.

Remember it is only about a third of the population that has been brainwashed, another third is looking on in horror and astonishment. — Punshhh

What about the final third?

They are the people who didn't vote, either they don't know, or can't vote, or won't vote perhaps.
I expect a proportion of them are looking on in horror, and some are so bored they just want to jump of the cliff, just to end it.

It sounds like Johnson's plan B is to cock a snook at the EU at the summit in October and hope they take offence.

Remember it is only about a third of the population that has been brainwashed, another third is looking on in horror and astonishment. — Punshhh

Yes, I bear that in mind, and I apologise to that "third", I didn't mean them.

Yes, I bear that in mind, and I apologise to that "third", I didn't mean them.

Thats ok, this illustrates the problem of populism, it generates divisions where is there are none, by exploiting moderate human behaviour.

For example Johnson simply needs to meet the EU leaders and insult them in person and they will find it difficult not to respond with an insult and to then grant the extension which he doesn't want.

For example Johnson simply needs to meet the EU leaders and insult them in person and they will find it difficult not to respond with an insult and to then grant the extension which he doesn't want. — Punshhh

Frankly, at this level I would like to expect EU politicians to be above such cheap tricks.

Sajid Javid blatantly contradicting himself.

Frankly, at this level I would like to expect EU politicians to be above such cheap tricks.

I hope you are right. I worry about president Macron, he has political tensions at home, any sign of weakness might not go down well.

A quick questions for the UK members.

I haven't seen any good explanations of why Boris can kick people out of the conservative party. I'm pretty sure it's not a power prime ministers (or the leader of the party) have in most other party systems; more people would be involved to kick someone out (if it's possible at all, considering citizen party members voted for them). Or am I missing some detail such as Boris controlling the "kick out committee" or that the MP's in question technically quit? In other countries, kicking a single person out of the party would be a pretty complicated process and a scandal if it's for "just voting against the PM", but it seems to have passed as a completely normal event kicking 20 MP's out. Or is there just too much other chaos to dwell on this detail? Am genuinely confused. Drop a link if there's a good article about it.

My understanding is that 2 things have happened to these people. The whip has been withdrawn, which means they are no longer part of the parliamentary party. This is informal and means you are no longer in on the tactics, considered for any positions, or consulted about anything.

The other thing is the threat of deselection.

So they are not actually kicked out of the party, they merely lose their jobs and become mere peasants in it.

Latest: Boris Johnson declares ‘law of excluded middle’ an insult to democracy.

He's proroging at the first opportunity, while demanding an election. Both tactics which are pushing for a process leading to a Queen's speech. Ideally for Johnson, before 31st October( which is why the government had a hissy fit when The opposition didn't support an election). This exposes his position regarding a deal. He wants to bring back May's deal with ( which the speaker won't allow during this session of parliament) the backstop confined to Northern Ireland. He will then bring it back to the commons during the week before the deadline and present the MPs with a cliff edge, a deadly serious deadline this time, and try to force it through. Unfortunately in order to get it through he will need a lot of Labour votes. Something which is tragically impossible, at least with the current parliament. Also there is an open goal for a vote of confidence, which Corbyn can call at anytime, after the prorogation period, unless he sneaks it in this evening before it.

However if he gets his general election before the deadline all he has to do is agree an election pact with the Brexit party and he's laughing, or so he thinks. Because it will result in a fatal split in the Conservative party.

The opposition smells a rat and won't agree to an election until after the deadline, which fatally weakens Johnson, as the Brexit party will then demolish the Conservative party. Thus ushering in a Corbyn government.

It looks like speaker Bercow is stepping down before Oct. 31st. Bercow was being accused by Johnson of impartiality. We’ll see what happens.

Bercow was being accused by Johnson of impartiality. — NOS4A2

I think you mean the opposite. He's also been accused of a failure of political correctness towards women and a tendency to bullying. His popularity will soar with his resignation, which is clearly timed to ensure that the new speaker is elected by the current parliament and not a possible post election Johnson Government.

He was a hardcore remainer, is what I mean.