Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
Prevent Eurozone states from "ganging up" on Britain in access to the single market as they seek to integrate further Excusing Britain from the principle of ever closer union Giving more power to national parliaments to ‘red card’ EU plans Denying EU migrants access to in-work benefits for four years Ending child benefit payments to migrants’ children overseas No free movement for new EU states until their economies develop Cut red tape, complete the single market in services and sign major trade deals with the US and Asia Full on’ treaty change is essential The process is followed by an in-out referendum by the end of 2017
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
Sam Coates Good news. I'm told by a source in a position to know that Alan Mak will be given serious consideration for preferment at the next reshuffle
The argument about the 4 freedoms is emblematic of a bigger issue. What are Leave offering? What does Out look like and why would it be better? There is a case to be made and I think Gove is probably best placed to make it but it needs to be a vision that Leave as a whole signs up to.
Personally, I think Leave should commit to remaining in the EEA and single market. This means accepting that change will be modest and "control of our borders" won't be that different from the current situation.
But it also means that we can decide a lot more things for ourselves, that our economic access is still secure, that external investment in the UK still has that market access and, as Blackburn says, the layer of bureaucracy that is the European Parliament and the Commission is no longer our problem. I am clearly biased because this is what I want but I also believe that this is a sellable proposition that really should not frighten the horses too much.
Good post. I lean REMAIN but might possibly be tempted by your EEA proposition. It is certainly a clear vision of where we could be - but I find it hard to see the various LEAVE factions getting behind one clear vision. The big imponderable is how much of the LEAVE vote would melt away or lose interest once they realised that that option would have little impact on immigration.
Sam Coates Good news. I'm told by a source in a position to know that Alan Mak will be given serious consideration for preferment at the next reshuffle
And who says that treason never prospers?
[I fear that my joke will be treated literally by some]
It's Cameron's pretence that he has got a good deal that is broadly what he set out to achieve pre-general election that annoys me the most. He's showing a Brown like level of shameless BS.
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
London really is't a surprise. There's a reason house prices are sky high, and it isn't down to the demand from Russian oligarchs.
This is the data which will be used for the forthcoming boundary changes.
Pleased to see that both constituencies where I had a hand in the registration drive (Islington N and Broxtowe) had increases in registration, against the trend. A lot of hard work went into getting people to bloody send their forms in, and I know the same was happening in university seats. I wonder if the Tories felt "job done" when they got the boundary changes through, and took their foot off the pedal when it came to actually getting people to take the trouble.
Someone with more time than me might like to tot up the totals for Greater London, since that will give a hint for the mayoral election.
Seperately, Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has had his attempt to rejoin the Labour party called into question by his local party of Leyton and Wanstead. Wrack, who formerly edited Militant’s magazine for the FBU, Flame, is likely to have his application rubberstamped by the Labour party’s ruling NEC.
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
That is a huge change in Wales. 40 to 29?
Order the spreadsheet by column 'D'. Soon becomes clear that Wales is in line for constituency slaughter, so that sounds about right.
Speaking of Englishness, or lack thereof, read in the Mail the other day the BBC are thinking of having separate news for Scotland at six. Seems crackers to me.
Why, at present you have to wait till late at night to get any Scottish news. People here would like to here news with relevance to Scotland rather than just the limited London viewpoint. BBC news is pants. People want a Scottish news service and we pay plenty and don't get it.
Sebastian Payne Wow - Suzanne Evans + Neil Hamilton are both out as deputy chairs of Ukip. Replaced by Diane James/William Dartmouth https://t.co/VpRPoGLKRB
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
That is a huge change in Wales. 40 to 29?
Order the spreadsheet by column 'D'. Soon becomes clear that Wales is in line for constituency slaughter, so that sounds about right.
Sad news in the entertainment world. Larry LaPrise, who wrote the song and dance classic 'The Hokey Pokey' is dead at 93. His funeral went off with only one hitch, while transferring Larry to his coffin, they put his left leg in, and that's when the trouble began.
So, Gove reckons that the deal, such as it is, is not even legally binding. Given that the rest of the Justice ministers are campaigning for Leave, one has to conclude that they agree with him. Now, if the entire justice department believes this to be the case, it's hard to conclude that they are wrong.
Does Dashwood have a good reputation? Are there any lawyers here who can comment on the soundness of his argument?
On the other hand a former UK Justice of the ECJ thinks it not, as does The former director general of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union, Jean-Claude Piris who described it a "bullshit"
The government contends that a promise to change the Treaties after the poll can be legally binding. That is not the case. The former director general of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union, Jean-Claude Piris, has said that the notion of a binding promise to change the Treaties in the future is “bullshit”. Sir Konrad Schiemann, the UK’s former judge in the ECJ, agrees with him.
The argument about the 4 freedoms is emblematic of a bigger issue. What are Leave offering? What does Out look like and why would it be better? There is a case to be made and I think Gove is probably best placed to make it but it needs to be a vision that Leave as a whole signs up to.
Personally, I think Leave should commit to remaining in the EEA and single market. This means accepting that change will be modest and "control of our borders" won't be that different from the current situation.
But it also means that we can decide a lot more things for ourselves, that our economic access is still secure, that external investment in the UK still has that market access and, as Blackburn says, the layer of bureaucracy that is the European Parliament and the Commission is no longer our problem. I am clearly biased because this is what I want but I also believe that this is a sellable proposition that really should not frighten the horses too much.
The big imponderable is how much of the LEAVE vote would melt away or lose interest once they realised that that option would have little impact on immigration.
The uncharitable might think that not un-accidental......
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
That is a huge change in Wales. 40 to 29?
Order the spreadsheet by column 'D'. Soon becomes clear that Wales is in line for constituency slaughter, so that sounds about right.
What is noticeable about the England electorate is that there is hardly any change in the South. Almost all the reduction in seats is coming from the north.
Speaking of Englishness, or lack thereof, read in the Mail the other day the BBC are thinking of having separate news for Scotland at six. Seems crackers to me.
Why, at present you have to wait till late at night to get any Scottish news. People here would like to here news with relevance to Scotland rather than just the limited London viewpoint. BBC news is pants. People want a Scottish news service and we pay plenty and don't get it.
Mr. Meeks, then I must be some sort of crazy hybrid, because I must use about half the terms from either list.
I'm not convinced there's anything in that. Might as well have tatterdemalion on the U list and ragamuffon on the non-U list.
Edited extra bit: ragamuffin*, even.
Other posters can comment with more authority than me on the subject (I'm firmly in the "I don't care" category on such things). That list is very out of date now, of course.
Indeed. I've even heard a Duchess refer to "the toilet".
I use 'restroom' because I don't like people judging me
Mr. G, if the funding were split (ie a separate Scottish licence fee for Scottish content) it'd be fair enough.
Yes we get worst of both worlds at present , over 300M and we get zilch , they spend more on Linekar than the whole Scottish sports coverage. News is only a tiny add on late at night, BBC provide a crap service. Al Jazeera and RT give better world coverage.
Some figures from GreatKingRat on Vote2012, (hope he doesn't mind me copying and pasting):
"England breakdown
East Midlands 3275046 44 Eastern 4242266 57 London 5118884 68 North East 1874396 25 North West 5074302 68 South East (excl IOW) 6067475 81 South West 3930770 53 West Midlands 3989320 53 Yorkshire & Humber 3722035 50
@faisalislam: AG Wright: "not just my opinion –opinion of this government’s lawyers, lawyers for EU, and, I suspect, majority of lawyers in this country.”
@faisalislam: NB ... Perhaps a gently subtle dig there at the Lord Chancellor, who is not a lawyer, nor a legal adviser
On news: it used to be posted on notice boards where three roads met. Hence the word 'trivia' [different root from 'trivial' which referred to the earlier stages of education in the Elizabethan era, involving three subjects, I think].
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
That is a huge change in Wales. 40 to 29?
Order the spreadsheet by column 'D'. Soon becomes clear that Wales is in line for constituency slaughter, so that sounds about right.
Wales is in line for constituency slaughter - or Labour in Wales?
It won't help Labour lots, but a lot of the smallest Welsh constituencies are in more rural north and mid Wales, suggesting a slightly more complex picture. The smallest 4 for example (and admittedly the next tranche after that are mainly Labour seats with the rest of the PC ones mixed in):
Arfon - PC Dwyfor Meirionnydd - PC Aberconwy - Con Mongomeryshire - Con
Well, I've been saying for four years that those advocating us leaving the EU needed to do some serious work to formulate and agree a coherent Brexit plan in order to address the 'leap in the dark' argument. I got loads of stick here for pointing that out, but it seems that now, with just four months to go, the penny is finally dropping amongst the Leavers. Of course it's too late.
As well as the drip-drip of concerns (or scare stories, if you prefer) about jobs, there will also be four months of similar doubts being raised about other areas of concern. Take, for example, this article, addressed mainly to people saving for their pensions:
Now, this is not propaganda by Remain, and it's not trying to take sides; it is Hargreaves Lansdown, the dominant investment platform with736,000 customers, trying to be as objective as possible (as it happens, I believe Peter Hargreaves supports Leave, so this particular messenger can't be shot). And they do indeed put both sides of the case in the article, acknowledging the uncertainty of the various claims. But the effect of such articles is precisely to feed into the Remain narrative of Doubt.
As the referendum approaches, and as the choice becomes clearer, the lack of a coherent alternative, and the risk, will very heavily favour the status quo. Only visceral fear of migration can help Leave, but they are not agreed on using it and in any case it doesn't actually add up.
Mr. Meeks, then I must be some sort of crazy hybrid, because I must use about half the terms from either list.
I'm not convinced there's anything in that. Might as well have tatterdemalion on the U list and ragamuffon on the non-U list.
Edited extra bit: ragamuffin*, even.
Other posters can comment with more authority than me on the subject (I'm firmly in the "I don't care" category on such things). That list is very out of date now, of course.
Indeed. I've even heard a Duchess refer to "the toilet".
I use 'restroom' because I don't like people judging me
If London stays the same and Wales reduces, that could actually work out OK for Labour.
The question would be then which parts of London/Wales get reduced? I suspect E London's population is booming (but are numbers of registered UK electors?) whereas I'd suspect the part of Wales to take the biggest hit would be the Valleys. Doubtless someone will crunch the numbers for us.
Trivia in Roman mythology was the goddess who "haunted crossroads, graveyards, and was the goddess of sorcery and witchcraft, she wandered about at night and was seen only by the barking of dogs who told of her approach."[1] She was the equivalent of the Greek goddess Hecate, the goddess of witchcraft, the three-way crossroads and the harvest moon.
On news: it used to be posted on notice boards where three roads met. Hence the word 'trivia' [different root from 'trivial' which referred to the earlier stages of education in the Elizabethan era, involving three subjects, I think].
What is noticeable about the England electorate is that there is hardly any change in the South. Almost all the reduction in seats is coming from the north.
Its going to be a terrible night for the Tories...
Mr. Meeks, then I must be some sort of crazy hybrid, because I must use about half the terms from either list.
I'm not convinced there's anything in that. Might as well have tatterdemalion on the U list and ragamuffon on the non-U list.
Edited extra bit: ragamuffin*, even.
Other posters can comment with more authority than me on the subject (I'm firmly in the "I don't care" category on such things). That list is very out of date now, of course.
Indeed. I've even heard a Duchess refer to "the toilet".
I use 'restroom' because I don't like people judging me
Lol, I remember some film years ago, with a young society lady talking to some elderly dowager and complaining that it was too warm and she was starting to sweat, to which came the reply
"My dear, Horses 'sweat', Gentlemen 'perspire' and Ladies 'glow' "
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
That is a huge change in Wales. 40 to 29?
Order the spreadsheet by column 'D'. Soon becomes clear that Wales is in line for constituency slaughter, so that sounds about right.
Wales is in line for constituency slaughter - or Labour in Wales?
It won't help Labour lots, but a lot of the smallest Welsh constituencies are in more rural north and mid Wales, suggesting a slightly more complex picture. The smallest 4 for example (and admittedly the next tranche after that are mainly Labour seats with the rest of the PC ones mixed in):
Arfon - PC Dwyfor Meirionnydd - PC Aberconwy - Con Mongomeryshire - Con
Sam Coates Good news. I'm told by a source in a position to know that Alan Mak will be given serious consideration for preferment at the next reshuffle
Probably the source is someone whose first name is Alan and whose surname has three letters...
I met Alan Mak a couple of times when he was sniffing about Wealden. I don't think I've ever met anyone quite so transparently and shamelessly ambitious. It was actually rather impressive - he even remembered my name when we met the second time, which given that I'm just a party member with no particular influence shows a quite astonishing degree of attention to detail.
I expect he'll go far, but I'm pleased we chose Nus Ghani!
Unless I am missing something SPIN only has one spread on the EU Ref. a spread of 0 (leave)-100 (remain) - "Brexit Binary 100 Index". Nothing on percentages or similar. Bit disappointing. Anyone know if they are going to put anything else up?
So what scenarios remain in which Trump doesn't get the nomination?
The biggest risk would be a health scare, I think.
Scandal.
Caught snorting coke from a transsexual hooker's boobs wearing a Hillary Clinton face mask. That sort of thing.
He trashed Dubya in South Carolina, one of the most republican military states there is (Sounding like Michael Moore)- and defended Planned Parenthood there (That's supposed to be impossible to do as a GOP candidate, even "moderate" Kasich goes against them).
If London stays the same and Wales reduces, that could actually work out OK for Labour.
What's needed - and it would be well worth a separate thread - is an analysis of how electorates in Tory-held and Labour-held seats have changed. That isn't because of any assumption that new voters are Lab or Con, but because the boundary changes will follow this pattern. To put it simply, if there were suddenly 100% more voters in Witney, Witney would probably get another seat.
Doing a subset breakdown for Greater London would make it perfect.
I actually think Labour is doing OK at the moment, contrary to Southam's perma-gloom. Sure, if we were coasting along peacefully with agreeably uncontentious A.N. Other (Alan Johnson, say) at the helm, we'd probably be ahead in the polls. Instead, we've had months of unmitigated scorn not just from the Tory leadership but significant Labour dissenters and media coverage from the utterly hostile to the barely tolerant. The result: much the same figures as last May.
Now from the viewpoint of "all that matters is winning", this is a big missed opportunity - we are 6 points behind when we could be 6 points ahead. But from the viewpoint of "Labour needs to be about serious change", we've got the serious change and we're still generally in the 30+ zone. By 2020, either Jeremy will have lived down the hostility or he'll have stepped down and people will be assessing a new leader, the effect of which it's never easy to be confident in advance. I don't think the prospect of Labour winning is better than a 3-1 shot, but the Tory assumption that it's all in the bag so they can beat each other up and screw their voters in the Budget is possibly hubristic.
Thanks. Had a useful summary of potential BREXIT scenarios:
Brexit scenarios
It is often assumed that in the event of Brexit, the UK could choose to be like Norway, Switzerland or Turkey; in Europe but not in the EU. However, these countries have never been in the EU - there is no historical precedent for a country leaving.
European Economic Area The Norway option. The EEA is a free trade area comprising the EU, Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland. Pros: Direct contribution to the EU would fall by around 17%. Cons: UK would still be subject to EU regulations but would lose its seat at the negotiating table.
European Free Trade Association The Switzerland option. As above but EFTA also includes Switzerland. Pros: not subject to EU regulations, budget contribution falls by c.60%. Cons: would need to negotiate bilateral agreements to access the single market in specific sectors.
Customs union The Turkey option. Pros: retain some benefits of membership, mostly with respect to trade in goods. Cons: outside the single market, with a very severe impact on services sector.
There are many other options – the UK could set up its own free trade agreements with the EU and other nations, or simply rely on the World Trade Organisation’s ‘most favoured nation’ status, under which it would be free to set its own terms of trade.
Have any of the LEAVE campaigns proposed a particular version?
Just been looking at the ONS data. The overall UK quota is 77,008. For England this goes up to 77,238 due to the extra seat for the Isle of Wight. I calculate at a regional level it works out as follows:
NE - 24 (-5) NW - 67 (-8) Yorks & H - 49 (-5) E Mids - 44 (-2) W Mids - 53 (-6) Eastern - 57 (-1) London - 73 (no change) SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1) SW - 52 (-3) Wales 29 (-11) Scotland 52 (-7) NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
That is a huge change in Wales. 40 to 29?
Order the spreadsheet by column 'D'. Soon becomes clear that Wales is in line for constituency slaughter, so that sounds about right.
Wales is in line for constituency slaughter - or Labour in Wales?
It won't help Labour lots, but a lot of the smallest Welsh constituencies are in more rural north and mid Wales, suggesting a slightly more complex picture. The smallest 4 for example (and admittedly the next tranche after that are mainly Labour seats with the rest of the PC ones mixed in):
Arfon - PC Dwyfor Meirionnydd - PC Aberconwy - Con Mongomeryshire - Con
The advantage PC has is that its vote is ideally placed for first past the post -- packed in a small number of constituencies. So, if you enlarge Arfon by giving it parts of Ynys Mon (Lab/PC marginal), or Dwyfor Merionnydd by parts of Ceridigion (Lib/PC marginal), the demographics don't much change. The adjoining areas are still Welsh-speaking. I suspect PC will be unchanged.
The Tories will certainly lose one seat as Gower is surrounded by Labour strongholds. And probably also one of the Pembrokeshire seats.
But, in mid-Wales, it really depends on how the boundaries go. It is perfectly possible to enlarge Montgomeryshire with the rural parts of Clwyd South (Lab/Tory marginal) and produce a safer Tory seat.
I still think Labour will take most of the hit. Tories -2, Labour -8 would be my guess with Lib or PC -1 .
So, Gove reckons that the deal, such as it is, is not even legally binding. Given that the rest of the Justice ministers are campaigning for Leave, one has to conclude that they agree with him. Now, if the entire justice department believes this to be the case, it's hard to conclude that they are wrong.
Does Dashwood have a good reputation? Are there any lawyers here who can comment on the soundness of his argument?
International law is a notoriously tricky area but there are a number of points to make - and Dominic Grieve QC also made them in the Today programme, namely:-
1. An agreement can be legally binding (Grieve is probably right on that and Gove probably wrong - though he is really addressing a different point - see no. 3 below) but that does not tell you very much about how it will be interpreted should there be a challenge nor how it interacts with other agreements and treaties.
2. The justiciability of an international agreement is a minefield i.e. the extent to which a court can rule on the legal consequences for particular parties of what is set out in the treaty.
3. How the agreement which has been reached will be incorporated into any new EU treaties will play a very important part in determining what its legal effect will be as part of EU law. This is the key point which Gove is making: that this agreement is not yet part of EU law and that the final interpreter of EU law is not Cameron or the British Parliament but the ECJ which has a very specific mandate.
4. So will how the ECJ interprets it - which will in turn depend on the basis of any challenge brought. It is worth remembering that the likely route of any challenge will be something like this: benefits limited to a Pole, Pole challenges this in UK courts, appeal goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the latter determines that there is a point of EU law which will need to be determined by the ECJ. Matter goes to ECJ who rule.
5. It is true up to a point that even though this agreement is not part of EU law the ECJ should "take account of" it. ("Should" not "must", BTW.) But "taking account of" is not the same as "giving effect to" let alone "giving effect to in the way that one out of 29 governments thought".
The old Nissan huts or the prison complete with suicide nets?
Both awful. I don't think a day went by when I didn't see pickets outside with NUPE placards. Someone left theirs behind, so I carried it home and it had pride of place in my bedroom
Sam Coates Good news. I'm told by a source in a position to know that Alan Mak will be given serious consideration for preferment at the next reshuffle
Probably the source is someone whose first name is Alan and whose surname has three letters...
I met Alan Mak a couple of times when he was sniffing about Wealden. I don't think I've ever met anyone quite so transparently and shamelessly ambitious. It was actually rather impressive - he even remembered my name when we met the second time, which given that I'm just a party member with no particular influence shows a quite astonishing degree of attention to detail.
I expect he'll go far, but I'm pleased we chose Nus Ghani!
A thread based on a poll. Am I alone in having major reservations about the polls? This poll was conducted over three days the first day whilst negotiations had not finished. A sample of just 1,000 split in that way? Have Comres altered their methodology to give a more accurate picture than the GE2015 polls they provided?
PSOE and Ciudadanos deal signed in Spain. Very good news. In fact, the only good piece of political news I can recall for many, many months. The grown-ups have been given a chance, though the kids can get together to mess things up at any time. Rajoy now finished as PP leader, surely.
If London stays the same and Wales reduces, that could actually work out OK for Labour.
What's needed - and it would be well worth a separate thread - is an analysis of how electorates in Tory-held and Labour-held seats have changed. That isn't because of any assumption that new voters are Lab or Con, but because the boundary changes will follow this pattern. To put it simply, if there were suddenly 100% more voters in Witney, Witney would probably get another seat.
Doing a subset breakdown for Greater London would make it perfect.
I actually think Labour is doing OK at the moment, contrary to Southam's perma-gloom. Sure, if we were coasting along peacefully with agreeably uncontentious A.N. Other (Alan Johnson, say) at the helm, we'd probably be ahead in the polls. Instead, we've had months of unmitigated scorn not just from the Tory leadership but significant Labour dissenters and media coverage from the utterly hostile to the barely tolerant. The result: much the same figures as last May.
Now from the viewpoint of "all that matters is winning", this is a big missed opportunity - we are 6 points behind when we could be 6 points ahead. But from the viewpoint of "Labour needs to be about serious change", we've got the serious change and we're still generally in the 30+ zone. By 2020, either Jeremy will have lived down the hostility or he'll have stepped down and people will be assessing a new leader, the effect of which it's never easy to be confident in advance. I don't think the prospect of Labour winning is better than a 3-1 shot, but the Tory assumption that it's all in the bag so they can beat each other up and screw their voters in the Budget is possibly hubristic.
If London stays the same and Wales reduces, that could actually work out OK for Labour.
What's needed - and it would be well worth a separate thread - is an analysis of how electorates in Tory-held and Labour-held seats have changed. That isn't because of any assumption that new voters are Lab or Con, but because the boundary changes will follow this pattern. To put it simply, if there were suddenly 100% more voters in Witney, Witney would probably get another seat.
Doing a subset breakdown for Greater London would make it perfect.
I actually think Labour is doing OK at the moment, contrary to Southam's perma-gloom. Sure, if we were coasting along peacefully with agreeably uncontentious A.N. Other (Alan Johnson, say) at the helm, we'd probably be ahead in the polls. Instead, we've had months of unmitigated scorn not just from the Tory leadership but significant Labour dissenters and media coverage from the utterly hostile to the barely tolerant. The result: much the same figures as last May.
Now from the viewpoint of "all that matters is winning", this is a big missed opportunity - we are 6 points behind when we could be 6 points ahead. But from the viewpoint of "Labour needs to be about serious change", we've got the serious change and we're still generally in the 30+ zone. By 2020, either Jeremy will have lived down the hostility or he'll have stepped down and people will be assessing a new leader, the effect of which it's never easy to be confident in advance. I don't think the prospect of Labour winning is better than a 3-1 shot, but the Tory assumption that it's all in the bag so they can beat each other up and screw their voters in the Budget is possibly hubristic.
Hmm. As I pointed out last week, two by-elections in Broxtowe showed a 3% swing from Labour to Tory in this key marginal seat.
So, Gove reckons that the deal, such as it is, is not even legally binding. Given that the rest of the Justice ministers are campaigning for Leave, one has to conclude that they agree with him. Now, if the entire justice department believes this to be the case, it's hard to conclude that they are wrong.
Does Dashwood have a good reputation? Are there any lawyers here who can comment on the soundness of his argument?
International law is a notoriously tricky area but there are a number of points to make - and Dominic Grieve QC also made them in the Today programme, namely:-
1. An agreement can be legally binding (Grieve is probably right on that and Gove probably wrong - though he is really addressing a different point - see no. 3 below) but that does not tell you very much about how it will be interpreted should there be a challenge nor how it interacts with other agreements and treaties.
2. The justiciability of an international agreement is a minefield i.e. the extent to which a court can rule on the legal consequences for particular parties of what is set out in the treaty.
3. How the agreement which has been reached will be incorporated into any new EU treaties will play a very important part in determining what its legal effect will be as part of EU law. This is the key point which Gove is making: that this agreement is not yet part of EU law and that the final interpreter of EU law is not Cameron or the British Parliament but the ECJ which has a very specific mandate.
4. So will how the ECJ interprets it - which will in turn depend on the basis of any challenge brought. It is worth remembering that the likely route of any challenge will be something like this: benefits limited to a Pole, Pole challenges this in UK courts, appeal goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the latter determines that there is a point of EU law which will need to be determined by the ECJ. Matter goes to ECJ who rule.
5. It is true up to a point that even though this agreement is not part of EU law the ECJ should "take account of" it. ("Should" not "must", BTW.) But "taking account of" is not the same as "giving effect to" let alone "giving effect to in the way that one out of 29 governments thought".
Trump: VA, TX, OK, AR, TN Rubio: TX, TX, OK, GA Cruz: TX, TX, TX, TX, TX, TX, TX, TX
God, that's pretty desperate for Cruz. The idea is usually that you don't need to campaign in your home state!
If Trump has any sense, he'll hold it to the one rally in Texas.
Bear in mind Texas is already voting. The last thing Trump wants to do is actually win Texas. His best result is to get 30% or some such there with Cruz on ~ 35.
So what scenarios remain in which Trump doesn't get the nomination?
The biggest risk would be a health scare, I think.
Scandal.
Caught snorting coke from a transsexual hooker's boobs wearing a Hillary Clinton face mask. That sort of thing.
He trashed Dubya in South Carolina, one of the most republican military states there is (Sounding like Michael Moore)- and defended Planned Parenthood there (That's supposed to be impossible to do as a GOP candidate, even "moderate" Kasich goes against them).
5. It is true up to a point that even though this agreement is not part of EU law the ECJ should "take account of" it. ("Should" not "must", BTW.) But "taking account of" is not the same as "giving effect to" let alone "giving effect to in the way that one out of 29 governments thought".
If the ECJ has in past rulings declared the EU Treaties to be above international law, and on that basis struck down a UK Security Council resolution, why do we think they will pay more than notional attention to a political agreement ?
The ECJ overruled the promises given to Denmark in 1992 when EU leaders pledged that EU citizenship would “not in any way take the place of national citizenship”
The agreement says it is “in conformity” with the EU Treaties. I believe under the 1969 Vienna Convention, this means the EU Treaties will have precedence over the renegotiation in international law.
EU judges have stated that they will ignore international law where it conflicts with the EU Treaties. In 2008, the ECJ said that “the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles” of the EU Treaties
The ECJ has previously said that such a political declaration “has no legal significance”.
Few buildings are so oppressive. And the thousand yard walks between wings outside, bloody awful in poor weather.
I had several meetings there with DWP and dreaded them. It was really strange to see everything else unchanged around the place. Bar the down at heel Metro station. They were all so lovely and shiny when I moved south.
That is a possibility, and that does not sound terrible to me.
Christ the lack of ambition of so many Brits is depressing, reminds me of why I do business in Asia. No one is concerned about the future of their country, or the possibilities of a better and more prosperous life for their grandchildren, or reaching out across the world and becoming a truly global country, not stuck in a decaying backwater.
Oh no, everyone is concerned it might cost them £2.50 a month off their pension, or they might have a couple extra forms to fill in once a year. The poverty of ambition is breathtaking. The UK doesn't reach for the stars any more, it reaches for the six pack of lager and turns of Big Brother.
I will lose a lot of respect for my fellow Britons if they fall en-masse for these scare tactics.
I wouldn't. It's natural for people to believe powerful vested interests who promise them the terrors of the earth. I blame the powerful vested interests, not the people who believe them.
I am venting. I would also blame Leave for fighting like a sack of kittens, and myself for my lack of restraint and intemperance.
The problem with our side is that we have no coherent vision for a post-EU world. Obviously, individually we all have coherent visions, and yours, Richard Tyndall and mine all look remarkably similar. But our vision is very different to that of Plato and Nigel Farage. The Indigo answer of "we'll sort it out on the other side" misses the fact that for many voters, the order of preference is EEA > EU > Fortress UK.
I blameswallow the fact that he's only going to get 50% of what he wants. Because if he doesn't, he'll end up with 0%.
I think its unfair to class an end state with some limits on migration as "fortress UK". Is Canada "fortress Canada"??
Try opening an office in Canada or the US, the tell me. It's basically impossible unless you want to pay huge sus of money and make big and expensive employment commitments. Then there are the tax implications ...
You get none of that with the EU.
Having set up companies in both France and Germany I don't agree with that. In the UK you can set up a company with £1 share capital. In France and Germany it is considerably more and your duties as a director are a lot more onerous.
I don't understand Gove's intervention today, he is not a lawyer let alone an international treaty law expert. I'm of the opinion that Dave's agreement isn't as legally binding as he thinks and the EC will just throw it in the bin (other than the bits they like such as taking back our EMU regulation opt-out) after a Remain vote. The government will take it to court and the political ECJ will vote in the EC's favour. If he wants to argue that the EC/EU are not trustworthy then that's fine, but pretending to be a legal expert is a poor idea.
Comments
NE - 24 (-5)
NW - 67 (-8)
Yorks & H - 49 (-5)
E Mids - 44 (-2)
W Mids - 53 (-6)
Eastern - 57 (-1)
London - 73 (no change)
SE - 82 (+ 1 extra seat for IOW) (-1)
SW - 52 (-3)
Wales 29 (-11)
Scotland 52 (-7)
NI 17 (-1)
What's quite suprising is that despite the individual registration change, London is the only region not to lose any seats. For example, Hackney was supposed to have been one of the worst areas affected but still keeps 2 seats.
I'm also surprised how badly Scotland does considering electoral registration went up for the indie ref.
Prevent Eurozone states from "ganging up" on Britain in access to the single market as they seek to integrate further
Excusing Britain from the principle of ever closer union
Giving more power to national parliaments to ‘red card’ EU plans
Denying EU migrants access to in-work benefits for four years
Ending child benefit payments to migrants’ children overseas
No free movement for new EU states until their economies develop
Cut red tape, complete the single market in services and sign major trade deals with the US and Asia
Full on’ treaty change is essential
The process is followed by an in-out referendum by the end of 2017
Worth comparing to the deal he actually got.
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/331884/thread
Trump: 46.2%
Rubio: 23.9%
Cruz: 21.6%
Carson: 4.9%
Kasich: 3.5%
http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/nevada-republican-caucus/
However only one side has Cameron.
Good news. I'm told by a source in a position to know that Alan Mak will be given serious consideration for preferment at the next reshuffle
Boris matters because moderate Tory voters are biggest swing group in EU referendum: @Adam_Ludlow of ComRes https://t.co/obq2gXl0YM
Guardian a bit more up to date !
Trump just below 46 now.
Trump 14
Rubio 7
Cruz 6
Carson 1
Kasich 1
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/24/brussels-briefing-the-vienna-insurrection/
Real Donald Tump
Congratulations to my fellow American @MayorofLondon . I look forward to working with you in 2017. #projectHair
[I fear that my joke will be treated literally by some]
Someone with more time than me might like to tot up the totals for Greater London, since that will give a hint for the mayoral election.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/02/senior-momentum-member-expelled-labour
And the link again
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-H4eqc43aDRvF9V_VOjTQRh-rPmNifYJom-yaJ79Rpg/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0
(Just to wind up Doddy.... ;-) )
People want a Scottish news service and we pay plenty and don't get it.
Wow - Suzanne Evans + Neil Hamilton are both out as deputy chairs of Ukip. Replaced by Diane James/William Dartmouth https://t.co/VpRPoGLKRB
They weren't exactly in danger of losing any of those seats...I assume you mean the good news is they may not see seats being abolished
http://www.cityam.com/234652/david-camerons-eu-deal-is-in-legal-terms-not-worth-the-paper-its-printed-on and then there is this
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/top_judge_blows_apart_government_s_eu_renegotiation
@SpecCoffeeHouse: MPs brace themselves for start of boundaries row https://t.co/wuDnO2fSbk
Reporting Scotland will be shown live online at 13:30, 18:30 and 22:25 each Monday to
Friday.
"England breakdown
East Midlands 3275046 44
Eastern 4242266 57
London 5118884 68
North East 1874396 25
North West 5074302 68
South East (excl IOW) 6067475 81
South West 3930770 53
West Midlands 3989320 53
Yorkshire & Humber 3722035 50
East up 1, North East and West Midlands down 1
East of England
Bedfordshire 5.88
Cambridgeshire 7.42
Essex 17.05
Hertfordshire 10.72
Norfolk 8.64
Suffolk 7.04
So looks like Beds 6, Essex 17, Herts 11, Suffolk 7, Cambs+Norfolk 16"
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/331895/thread
@faisalislam: NB ... Perhaps a gently subtle dig there at the Lord Chancellor, who is not a lawyer, nor a legal adviser
Arfon - PC
Dwyfor Meirionnydd - PC
Aberconwy - Con
Mongomeryshire - Con
Trump 82
Cruz 18
Rubio 16
Kasich 6
Carson 4
As well as the drip-drip of concerns (or scare stories, if you prefer) about jobs, there will also be four months of similar doubts being raised about other areas of concern. Take, for example, this article, addressed mainly to people saving for their pensions:
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/what-does-the-eu-referendum-mean-for-your-investments
Now, this is not propaganda by Remain, and it's not trying to take sides; it is Hargreaves Lansdown, the dominant investment platform with736,000 customers, trying to be as objective as possible (as it happens, I believe Peter Hargreaves supports Leave, so this particular messenger can't be shot). And they do indeed put both sides of the case in the article, acknowledging the uncertainty of the various claims. But the effect of such articles is precisely to feed into the Remain narrative of Doubt.
As the referendum approaches, and as the choice becomes clearer, the lack of a coherent alternative, and the risk, will very heavily favour the status quo. Only visceral fear of migration can help Leave, but they are not agreed on using it and in any case it doesn't actually add up.
Trump: VA, TX, OK, AR, TN
Rubio: TX, TX, OK, GA
Cruz: TX, TX, TX, TX, TX, TX, TX, TX
Trump 1.48
Rube 3.2-3.5
Cruz 85
The biggest risk would be a health scare, I think.
The combined actuarial risk on all the candidates must be higher than normal this year though !
"My dear, Horses 'sweat', Gentlemen 'perspire' and Ladies 'glow' "
I met Alan Mak a couple of times when he was sniffing about Wealden. I don't think I've ever met anyone quite so transparently and shamelessly ambitious. It was actually rather impressive - he even remembered my name when we met the second time, which given that I'm just a party member with no particular influence shows a quite astonishing degree of attention to detail.
I expect he'll go far, but I'm pleased we chose Nus Ghani!
Caught snorting coke from a transsexual hooker's boobs wearing a Hillary Clinton face mask. That sort of thing.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-H4eqc43aDRvF9V_VOjTQRh-rPmNifYJom-yaJ79Rpg/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0
I think he is unstoppable.
Doing a subset breakdown for Greater London would make it perfect.
I actually think Labour is doing OK at the moment, contrary to Southam's perma-gloom. Sure, if we were coasting along peacefully with agreeably uncontentious A.N. Other (Alan Johnson, say) at the helm, we'd probably be ahead in the polls. Instead, we've had months of unmitigated scorn not just from the Tory leadership but significant Labour dissenters and media coverage from the utterly hostile to the barely tolerant. The result: much the same figures as last May.
Now from the viewpoint of "all that matters is winning", this is a big missed opportunity - we are 6 points behind when we could be 6 points ahead. But from the viewpoint of "Labour needs to be about serious change", we've got the serious change and we're still generally in the 30+ zone. By 2020, either Jeremy will have lived down the hostility or he'll have stepped down and people will be assessing a new leader, the effect of which it's never easy to be confident in advance. I don't think the prospect of Labour winning is better than a 3-1 shot, but the Tory assumption that it's all in the bag so they can beat each other up and screw their voters in the Budget is possibly hubristic.
Brexit scenarios
It is often assumed that in the event of Brexit, the UK could choose to be like Norway, Switzerland or Turkey; in Europe but not in the EU. However, these countries have never been in the EU - there is no historical precedent for a country leaving.
European Economic Area
The Norway option. The EEA is a free trade area comprising the EU, Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland.
Pros: Direct contribution to the EU would fall by around 17%.
Cons: UK would still be subject to EU regulations but would lose its seat at the negotiating table.
European Free Trade Association
The Switzerland option. As above but EFTA also includes Switzerland.
Pros: not subject to EU regulations, budget contribution falls by c.60%.
Cons: would need to negotiate bilateral agreements to access the single market in specific sectors.
Customs union
The Turkey option.
Pros: retain some benefits of membership, mostly with respect to trade in goods.
Cons: outside the single market, with a very severe impact on services sector.
There are many other options – the UK could set up its own free trade agreements with the EU and other nations, or simply rely on the World Trade Organisation’s ‘most favoured nation’ status, under which it would be free to set its own terms of trade.
Have any of the LEAVE campaigns proposed a particular version?
The Tories will certainly lose one seat as Gower is surrounded by Labour strongholds. And probably also one of the Pembrokeshire seats.
But, in mid-Wales, it really depends on how the boundaries go. It is perfectly possible to enlarge Montgomeryshire with the rural parts of Clwyd South (Lab/Tory marginal) and produce a safer Tory seat.
I still think Labour will take most of the hit. Tories -2, Labour -8 would be my guess with Lib or PC -1 .
1. An agreement can be legally binding (Grieve is probably right on that and Gove probably wrong - though he is really addressing a different point - see no. 3 below) but that does not tell you very much about how it will be interpreted should there be a challenge nor how it interacts with other agreements and treaties.
2. The justiciability of an international agreement is a minefield i.e. the extent to which a court can rule on the legal consequences for particular parties of what is set out in the treaty.
3. How the agreement which has been reached will be incorporated into any new EU treaties will play a very important part in determining what its legal effect will be as part of EU law. This is the key point which Gove is making: that this agreement is not yet part of EU law and that the final interpreter of EU law is not Cameron or the British Parliament but the ECJ which has a very specific mandate.
4. So will how the ECJ interprets it - which will in turn depend on the basis of any challenge brought. It is worth remembering that the likely route of any challenge will be something like
this: benefits limited to a Pole, Pole challenges this in UK courts, appeal goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the latter determines that there is a point of EU law which will need to be determined by the ECJ. Matter goes to ECJ who rule.
5. It is true up to a point that even though this agreement is not part of EU law the ECJ should "take account of" it. ("Should" not "must", BTW.) But "taking account of" is not the same as "giving effect to" let alone "giving effect to in the way that one out of 29 governments thought".
Both awful. I don't think a day went by when I didn't see pickets outside with NUPE placards. Someone left theirs behind, so I carried it home and it had pride of place in my bedroom
Bear in mind Texas is already voting. The last thing Trump wants to do is actually win Texas. His best result is to get 30% or some such there with Cruz on ~ 35.
The ECJ overruled the promises given to Denmark in 1992 when EU leaders pledged that EU citizenship would “not in any way take the place of national citizenship”
The agreement says it is “in conformity” with the EU Treaties. I believe under the 1969 Vienna Convention, this means the EU Treaties will have precedence over the renegotiation in international law.
EU judges have stated that they will ignore international law where it conflicts with the EU Treaties. In 2008, the ECJ said that “the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles” of the EU Treaties
The ECJ has previously said that such a political declaration “has no legal significance”.
I had several meetings there with DWP and dreaded them. It was really strange to see everything else unchanged around the place. Bar the down at heel Metro station. They were all so lovely and shiny when I moved south.