UK General Election 8th June: Shake it all about?

[zlax]

British press said:

Elizabeth II's program must pass the approval procedure in Parliament, the legislators may well vote against it and start the procedure of vote of no confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers of Johnson. The last time such a precedent arose was almost 100 years ago, but the current situation in the parliament hints at a possible repetition of this.

But what was it 100 years ago that caused the vote of no confidence? The search for this information gave out that in Britain in 1924cc, this procedure was carried out twice. First, the Conservative prime minister was removed from power, and then the Liberal prime minister was removed. This is what led to the removal of the Liberal minister:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Письмо_Зиновьева

Zinoviev's letter is a fake letter[1] attributed to the Chairman of the Comintern Grigory Zinoviev[2].
On July 25, 1924, the Scottish Communist John Campbell, deputy editor-in-chief of the "Workers Weekly", published an "Open Letter to the Armed Forces"[3]. He was arrested, but was not imposed penalties (see en:Campbell Case). The conservative opposition dismissed the Labour government. Early general elections were announced.
On September 15, the British Foreign Office received from MI5 a copy of a secret letter signed by the Chairman of the Comintern Executive Committee, Grigory Zinoviev[3]. This letter was delivered to them by a resident of Riga[3]. In the letter, Zinoviev offered the English Communists to intensify subversive work in the army and navy, to train their own staff for the coming civil war[2].
On October 25, 4 days before the elections, this letter was published in the Daily Mail[3]. The Soviet Charge d'affaires in Great Britain, Christian Rakowski, received a note of protest from the British government[3]. Grigory Zinoviev stated that the letter was a forgery[3]. In the USSR, the search for the author of the letter began, and at a meeting of the Politburo on December 18 offered "the person who delivered the "letter of Zinoviev" to declare himself, and he was "guaranteed security and impunity"[3]. The letter was also signed by Arthur McManus, a representative of the English Communists, and Otto Kuusinen, one of the leaders of the Comintern, who also stated that they were not involved in the publication[3].
In November, a delegation of British trade unions arrived in Moscow and published a report stating that it had studied the minutes of the Comintern Executive Committee meetings and found no signs of anti-English activity. Perhaps the delegation's report was influenced by the fact that, prior to the British visit, documents on the preparation of the world revolution were removed from the archives, but these documents concerned Germany and Bulgaria, not England[3].
It is believed that because of the publication of this letter in the elections, the conservatives (the leader was Stanley Baldwin) defeated the Labourists[2]. As a result, the general and trade agreements signed on 8 August between the USSR and the James McDonald government were not ratified.
In 1928, again in opposition, Baldwin and his fellows raised the subject of writing again. On March 19, 1928 Baldwin gave a speech in Parliament and brought some newly discovered "mystical circumstances" of the appearance of the letter: again rejecting the previous investigation. The People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Chicherin harshly answered on pages of the Soviet press. The British government, understanding that the fact of forgery would be established, refused to investigate the authenticity of the document. However, after a new spiral of scandal, British officials in the United Kingdom began to make less and less reference to the letter, and doubts about its authenticity were increasingly voiced in Labour and liberal circles[4].
The author of the forgery - the White émigré Sergei Druzhilovsky - was exposed in 1925 by publications of the newspaper "Rote Fane" and expelled from Germany. In 1926 he was arrested after the illegal crossing of the Latvian-Soviet border and was sentenced to death by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR in an open trial in Moscow[5]. At the same time, a documentary book "Anti-Soviet forgeries: History of forgeries. The facsimile and comments"[6]. The organizer of the scandalous provocation was the British spy and close friend of Winston Churchill, Major Desmond Morton[7].
The original letter was discovered in 1965, which resulted in the investigation book "Letter of Zinoviev", written by three journalists of the British newspaper "The Sunday Times". In February 1968, the same newspaper published articles related to the discovery of photocopies of Zinoviev's manuscript in the archives of Harvard University. Graphological analysis done by the expert John Conway showed that the "letter" belonged to the scout Sidney Reilly, who was also involved in the fabrication of the fake [5].
At the end of the 20th century, Robin Cook, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the government of Tony Blair, ordered the opening of some archives; it turned out that the letter was handed over to the Riga residency by a Russian emigrant from Berlin, who earned money by creating such forgeries [3]. The question was studied by Dr. Jill Bennett[8].

That's understandable. The reason for the resignation of the Liberal Prime Minister was a fake letter. But i was unable to find information about what exactly became the reason for the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_votes_of_no_confidence_in_British_governments#Defeat_of_the_Baldwin_ministry

[Cain]

Baldwin? He called an early election to get support for his protectionist trade policy and while in theory the Tories "won", they returned in such weakened numbers that the Liberal and Labour opposition had the numbers to vote down the King's Speech, the proposed legislative agenda of Parliament. Unable to control Parliament, a vote of no confidence was held and he offered his resignation.

[zlax]

Baldwin? He called an early election to get support for his protectionist trade policy and while in theory the Tories "won", they returned in such weakened numbers that the Liberal and Labour opposition had the numbers to vote down the King's Speech, the proposed legislative agenda of Parliament. Unable to control Parliament, a vote of no confidence was held and he offered his resignation.

Protectionism is like Brexit. But that doesn't solve anything, the feudal lords in this realm do.

[Cain]

So Boris has sent a letter to the EU, request an extension as per the Benn Act. However, he did not sign it.

He did, however, send two additional letters stating that he doesn't want a delay. This would appear to be an attempt to frustrate legislation, and thus per the Padfield principle, unconstitutional.

I hope none of the Supreme Courts are busy come Monday.

[Faust]

I would expect the EU to reject this or drag their feet until after the vote this week to help force it through.

[Doktor Howl]

https://www.apnews.com/f1a602a355dc46e78ef31366845796a7

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan to lead Britain out of the European Union at the end of this month hit another roadblock Monday when the speaker of the House of Commons rejected his attempt to hold a new vote of lawmakers on his Brexit divorce deal.

The ruling by Speaker John Bercow plunged the tortuous Brexit process back into grimly familiar territory: grinding parliamentary warfare.

With just 10 days to go until the U.K. is due to leave the bloc on Oct. 31, Johnson's government was seeking a "straight up-and-down vote" on the agreement he struck last week with the 27 other EU nations.

The request came just two days after lawmakers voted to delay approving the Brexit deal. Bercow refused to allow it because parliamentary rules generally bar the same measure from being considered a second time during the same session of Parliament unless something has changed.

Bercow — whose rulings in favor of backbench lawmakers have stymied government plans more than once before — said the motion proposed by the government was "in substance the same" as the one Parliament dealt with on Saturday. He said it would be "repetitive and disorderly" to allow a new vote Monday.

On Saturday — Parliament's first weekend sitting since the 1982 Falklands War — lawmakers voted to make support for the Brexit deal conditional on passing the legislation to implement it.

Johnson's Conservative government will now go to its Plan B: get Parliament's backing for his Brexit blueprint by passing the legislation, known as the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. The government plans to publish the bill later Monday and hopes to have it become law by Oct. 31.

[Junkenstien]

I would expect the EU to reject this or drag their feet until after the vote this week to help force it through.

EU apparently willing to grant extension to feb 2020.

The clear implication is that's plenty of time for a vote/referendum. Again.

[Doktor Howl]

I would expect the EU to reject this or drag their feet until after the vote this week to help force it through.

EU apparently willing to grant extension to feb 2020.

The clear implication is that's plenty of time for a vote/referendum. Again.

Johnson's gonna shit.  He's gonna shit bricks.   

[Junkenstien]

Just wait until there's a crisis or two to deal with.

[Faust]

But the opportunity for another referendum was squandered the last time. I would hope the EU extension is conditional on that.

[Junkenstien]

It's just got funnier.

[Doktor Howl]

It's just got funnier.

Yeah?

[Junkenstien]

Brexit deal passed by 30, then timetable lost by 15. Legislation paused, new attempt to make it EU's fault/problem to excuse why the 31/10 exit won't happen.

Deal as is looks to get loved to death with ammendments for good measure. And there will be plenty of those.



....



The year is now 2209, The English ambassador makes the Bi-annual trip to Eurasia to request and extension to Brexit. The ritual words are uttered and everything continues. 

[Cain]

It

Can.

Always.

Get.

Funnier.

[Magpie]

The DUP also put on a show of trying to block decriminalisation of abortion in NI yesterday, https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1021/1084614-stormont-assembly-abortion/ .

There was never any chance for power sharing to be negotiated on the day, but this way the DUP can claim to their extra religious supporters that they tried, but Westminster forced the changes on them, while also removing the issues of abortion and marriage equality whenever the next election happens.