[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Of course, Sister, this was the absolute master stroke:

However, Johnson declined to sign the letter and sent a separate letter outlining why he is opposed to delaying Brexit.

If the Supreme Court ruled that the signed prorogation order had all the force of a blank piece of paper, presumably an unsigned letter would be considered equally if not even more worthless.

Nobody knows for sure, but presumably the second letter was signed? Were they put in the same envelope to save postage costs? We have not been told, and quite rightly so. It is not the business of the general public to interfere with the workings of democracy.

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Now, I don't pretend to know what Boris Johnson's Master Plan exactly is in this case, but this thing about prolonging the UK stay in the EU while saying you hate that and want Brexit ASAP, seems like a really good plan for the next decade or so.

It is not our place to know such things. All I know is that Leave Means Leave and any suggestion that someone you know may possibly have voted Remain means you are a TRAITOR!

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

Of course, Sister, this was the absolute master stroke:
If the Supreme Court ruled that the signed prorogation order had all the force of a blank piece of paper, presumably an unsigned letter would be considered equally if not even more worthless.

Nobody knows for sure, but presumably the second letter was signed? Were they put in the same envelope to save postage costs? We have not been told, and quite rightly so. It is not the business of the general public to interfere with the workings of democracy.

It is not our place to know such things. All I know is that Leave Means Leave and any suggestion that someone you know may possibly have voted Remain means you are a TRAITOR!

Great insights, sister Joanna. I do have a question for you, though: what is it about the MP's discussing whether they will or will not hold a meaningful vote? Do they have a choice between a meaningful vote and a meaningless vote? I do not expect you to know the answer, but would you be so kind to ask Matthew to explain this - in simple terms that a mere woman can understand?

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Great insights, sister Joanna. I do have a question for you, though: what is it about the MP's discussing whether they will or will not hold a meaningful vote? Do they have a choice between a meaningful vote and a meaningless vote? I do not expect you to know the answer, but would you be so kind to ask Matthew to explain this - in simple terms that a mere woman can understand?

Look it's really quite simple ladies. Mrs. Lytton-Vassey was more or less correct when she said: "It is not the business of the general public to interfere with the workings of democracy." That's all you need to hang onto when listening in when the men are talking (and.... don't you have anything better to do?).

The Prime Minister, having just hours previously reworded a couple of paragraphs of Mrs. May's deal and removed the part about keeping the UK intact, wanted to get the Parliament to vote on his deal asap. Like now. Don't read it - sign it. The opposition (and some of his own team) thought they should read it first and demanded that Mr. Johnson lay out the consequences of his deal before Parliament votes on it. Mr. Johnson generously waited until Monday then tried to hold the vote again but the Speaker (nobody quite knows why this person gets to decide) said ORRRDDDER and refused.

According to logic and The Law, the Prime Minister should now go about convincing people why his tweaked deal is better than Theresa May's deal. But that's hard work so expect a few weeks/months of anything but followed by excuses about missing homework and a last-minute plan that relies on everyone else doing something never done before and Boris flying around in a helicopter or doing a zipline. Just to recap: before he was Prime Minister he voted against 95% of the deal 4 times and of the 5% he changed he had previously said "I have to tell you that no British Conservative government could or should sign up to any such arrangement." Oops just signed it.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

I do have a question for you, though: what is it about the MP's discussing whether they will or will not hold a meaningful vote? Do they have a choice between a meaningful vote and a meaningless vote?

Oh, this is perfectly straightforward, Sister Basilissa. One of the boys explained the innovation to me.

Basically a meaningful vote is a vote that counts. A meaningless or fake vote (previously referred to as "indicative", which was confusing as indicative is the opposite of subjunctive) is a pretend vote, where MPs show how they would vote if they were in fact voting, which they aren't. If the pretend vote goes the right way for the government, then they have a meaningful or real vote. If the pretend vote goes the wrong way, they don't. Foolproof, or "Classic Dom" as it's now known (a reference to Prime Minister Johnson's master-strategist, Mr Dominic Gowings).

The only problem is that MPs, unlike PM Johnson, are innately unreliable - or possibly just forgetful - and may vote differently the second time around, making what the British call "a complete Horlicks" of things. Hence the change of name from indicative to meaningless. I hope that is clear?

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

The Prime Minister, having just hours previously reworded a couple of paragraphs of Mrs. May's deal and removed the part about keeping the UK intact, wanted to get the Parliament to vote on his deal asap. Like now. Don't read it - sign it. The opposition (and some of his own team) thought they should read it first and demanded that Mr. Johnson lay out the consequences of his deal before Parliament votes on it.

That's odd. You'd think nowadays people would get used to signing papers without reading them - with mortgage documents being so long and confusing, and with all the software licenses we agree to.

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

Oh, this is perfectly straightforward, Sister Basilissa. One of the boys explained the innovation to me.

Basically a meaningful vote is a vote that counts. A meaningless or fake vote (previously referred to as "indicative", which was confusing as indicative is the opposite of subjunctive) is a pretend vote, where MPs show how they would vote if they were in fact voting, which they aren't. If the pretend vote goes the right way for the government, then they have a meaningful or real vote. If the pretend vote goes the wrong way, they don't. Foolproof, or "Classic Dom" as it's now known (a reference to Prime Minister Johnson's master-strategist, Mr Dominic Gowings).

Good grief. I really thank Jesus for making me a rather than a godless Brit.

The only problem is that MPs, unlike PM Johnson, are innately unreliable - or possibly just forgetful - and may vote differently the second time around, making what the British call "a complete Horlicks" of things. Hence the change of name from indicative to meaningless. I hope that is clear?

Well, that definitely explains the "meaningless" name! The question arises: why do even bother? Just to spend taxpayers' hard earned money?

How do you people manage to survive every day until 12 pm without a drink?!?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

How do you people manage to survive every day until 12 pm without a drink?!?

Oh my goodness, practically nobody here does. But that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with tradition.

None of this affects us, obviously, as despite being temporarily obliged to retain dual citizenship (something to do with Matthew's work), we never vote in British elections. Technically we could, but why would anyone bother?

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Great insights, sister Joanna. I do have a question for you, though: what is it about the MP's discussing whether they will or will not hold a meaningful vote? Do they have a choice between a meaningful vote and a meaningless vote? I do not expect you to know the answer, but would you be so kind to ask Matthew to explain this - in simple terms that a mere woman can understand?

Ir's not hard for a True Christian™ to see Boris Johnson (and Trump) as a modern day Moses delivering his people from the enslavement of Pharaoh (and the corruption of LIEberals, the deep state, and the money changers in the Temple). Those MP's not backing Boris should be concerned that Plagues may be coming to visit them (Exodus 10).

[Basilissa]

So I've been trying to follow what's going on in Great Britain for the same reason I follow news from some other banana republics - sheer amusement. Do I understand it correctly, that even though pro-Brexiteers don't want a second referendum on Brexit, they just basically agreed to have a second referendum on Brexit - disguised as early parliamentary elections?

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

So I've been trying to follow what's going on in Great Britain for the same reason I follow news from some other banana republics - sheer amusement. Do I understand it correctly, that even though pro-Brexiteers don't want a second referendum on Brexit, they just basically agreed to have a second referendum on Brexit - disguised as early parliamentary elections?

What would Jesus do? Obviously, He'd smite the sinning nation of the Britons with nukes or pestilence and based on some recent photographic evidence, the British primeval minister, Mr. Boris "am I Russian" Johnson has realized that and is fleeing the island with a dinghy.



Of course, careful examination will reveal that this, similar to every single thing that has ever happened or is taking place or will occur, was foretold in the KJV Bible.

Isaiah 22:5
For it is a day of trouble, and of treading down, and of perplexity by the Lord GOD of hosts in the valley of vision, breaking down the walls, and of crying to the mountains.



The Bible is wonderful and True™.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Do I understand it correctly, that even though pro-Brexiteers don't want a second referendum on Brexit, they just basically agreed to have a second referendum on Brexit - disguised as early parliamentary elections?

I don't understand how these things work, Sister - I mean, who even needs to? But a couple of weeks back some of my boys went out to conduct a poll of the local unwashed and, after careful thought, formulated the following questions:

1. Which would you prefer: a second referendum or an early general election?
2. Do you wish to remain in Europe or leave Europe?

83% of respondents replied "No" to the first question and, of these, 55% also replied "No" to the second. (Of the remaining 45%, about half said "Yes" and the remainder became verbally abusive.)

Of the 17% who did not say "No" to the first question, approximately half said "Yes". The remainder became physically threatening and were therefore excluded from the data. Out of those who replied "Yes", the most frequent response to the second question has no place on these Godly forums. The remainder said that they were in England, not in Europe, so it was a stupid question.

My eldest twins ran some sort of statistical analysis on this. I don't fully understand it, but I think they concluded that the people concerned were insignificant.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

With Brexit on everyone's minds, the UK government has finally done the right thing and decided to not ask them about it. Instead there will be another general election. The purpose of this election, as opposed to the last two, is to ??? and finally solve ???. (Although it would be a shame to waste a good economic crisis once Brexit happens).

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

With Brexit on everyone's minds, the UK government has finally done the right thing and decided to not ask them about it. Instead there will be another general election. The purpose of this election, as opposed to the last two, is to ??? and finally solve ???. (Although it would be a shame to waste a good economic crisis once Brexit happens).

My daughter Hannah (11) has just asked: "Who's going to be in charge of the Conservative Party after tomorrow? Because tomorrow is October 31st, which is the day Mr Johnson promised to leave Europe, and we all heard him tell the policemen that he'd rather be dead in a ditch than stay any longer. And God will surely grant him his prayer."

Neither I nor her brothers know quite how to answer this. I suppose we will just have to wait and see who takes over on November 1st.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

My daughter Hannah (11) has just asked: "Who's going to be in charge of the Conservative Party after tomorrow? Because tomorrow is October 31st, which is the day Mr Johnson promised to leave Europe, and we all heard him tell the policemen that he'd rather be dead in a ditch than stay any longer. And God will surely grant him his prayer."

Mrs. Lytton-Vasey, you can tell little Hannah that there is minimal risk of any Conservatives dying in a ditch in the United Kingdom. The socialist opposition has decided their best strategy is to decisively take control of Parliament and then remain indecisive on Brexit. Endless extensions, endless debate. Not only that, they have chosen to splinter into competing groups that draw red lines so as to make co-operation impossible. If I weren't so honest and trusting, I would think The Establishment (comprising a vastly disproportionate percentage of Eton/Oxbridge graduates - BBC, spy agencies, military/civil service, finance) were helping the socialists shoot themselves in the foot. God bless them!

Boris Johnson: “Let's get Brexit done”
Jeremy Corby: “It’s not about me, it’s not about any of the people on this platform, it’s not a presidential election”

Yay that's my guy.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

Mrs. Lytton-Vasey, you can tell little Hannah that there is minimal risk of any Conservatives dying in a ditch in the United Kingdom.

Well, unless they fall in and drown face-down in the mud. There has been quite a lot of rain recently.

Not only that, they have chosen to splinter into competing groups that draw red lines so as to make co-operation impossible.

Obviously these entirely imaginary commie lines would be red!

As a follow-up to my post yesterday about Hannah's question, I have long suspected that the British press lurks on these forums searching for stories and today this has been confirmed! The Guardian (a sub-literate leftist organ) published the following this evening. (The pledge referred to, for those who are even more confused than Hannah, was that Europe would secede from Britain by close of play today.)

Imagine any other prime minister making one single, existential pledge in order to reach office, and then again upon entering it. Imagine that prime minister repeating the sole pledge each day for three months. Imagine him saying he’d die for it. And then imagine him breaking that pledge, openly and unambiguously, and moving on as though nothing had happened.

I assume that the writer, whose day job is perhaps as some sort of spy, has insider information if he is so confident that Mr Johnson will survive beyond midnight? Hannah will be distraught that God has forsaken him.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

As I understand it, Guardian readers are not known for wearing pearls, so what do they clutch while doing the above?

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

As I understand it, Guardian readers are not known for wearing pearls, so what do they clutch while doing the above?

They clutch your pearls and use the proceeds to pay for gender reassignment therapy for prisoners.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

They clutch your pearls...

Ha, my sister got those. Full day set, breakfast, luncheon, tea, dinner and evening, though the opera rings are missing since glass-plate negative days. So they're right out of luck.










I got a pair of binoculars.










That my mother then borrowed.




































Permanently.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

As I understand it, Guardian readers are not known for wearing pearls,

Why not? Cruelty to oysters?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

As I understand it, Guardian readers are not known for wearing pearls, so what do they clutch while doing the above?

Quite the contrary, Didymus: Guardian readers are terribly middle class and notorious for giving their wives pearl necklaces.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Thankfully we might be able to put this thread to bed soon Last week the Britishers voted in a surprize election to hand the stirrups to Boris Johnson giving him a large majority. We've yet to see him wield his Brexit mandate but rest assured... ???.