I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
Won't take long for the Government to confirm whether they're appealing or not.
So, say it gets through the Commons (far from guaranteed), and the Lords reject it (likely). What then? Parliament Act and another year of delay, or General Election?
May has delayed as far as she can so far, so presumably she'd push back the Article 50 notification if the courts and parliament insisted on throwing her in the briar patch.
Steve Schale, Florida election expert, indicates a big day for Dems in the state yesterday. Spike again in Hispanics including large increases in NPA's in Hispanic communities :
Another point of note is the gender divide in early voting. In Florida it is 55/45 to women and is up across the US. If women continue to be more engaged they will provide a boost to Clinton's numbers. In 2012 the divide was 52/48.
I can't possibly account for the fairer sex being more energized this election unless it is the charm of Mr.Trump. After all as Donald told us - "No one has more respect for women than me" ....
That must be it surely ....
While AA voters are regressing to usual post Obama mean, are the ladies going to turnout for Hillary in a similar boost? Between the first ever main party contender, and Trumps open misogyny, there must surely be a boost.
Heaven forbid that the old adage "treat 'em mean, keep' em keen" proves true...
Trump did say that he thought it was 50/50 between those who were offended by his comments and those who were turned on by them, didn't he?
The establishment is going to try and thwart Brexit at every turn. Theresa May will not be able to get this done without a general election and a landslide majority.
She needs to get started on planning a Spring election now
Steve Schale, Florida election expert, indicates a big day for Dems in the state yesterday. Spike again in Hispanics including large increases in NPA's in Hispanic communities :
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
I think the government should just make a virtue of necessity and hold a Commons vote on A50 ASAP. on the understanding that if the Commons rejects A50, a general election will have to be held.
It's surely all about the GOTV operations in the close states. Signs are that Dems are more prepared for the ground war. However, tougher job to get some of their voters out. The reason EVs are not an ideal predictor is that you can't tell whether they are people who would have voted anyway and have been persuaded out early, or people who wouldn't otherwise have voted. So extra votes for the side ahead in them or using up the votes of the side ahead in them so fewer on the day? But each vote bagged in advance is one less you have to get out on polling day.
Edit: should have added that if people have already voted, they can't be influenced by any more surprises.
Some of the links below for Florida and NC says that the a good percentage of the independent Hispanic voters were ones who hadn't voted before ( around 20% worth I believe of them). No idea what that means numbers wise, but Nevada especially is looking like a big Clinton lead so far.
The point Schale is making in Florida, as you indicate, is that there has been a substantial spike in Hispanics turnout generally but specifically low propensity voter (0 & 1-3). Additionally NPA's in the state are breaking for Clinton party because many Hispanics register as such.
These facts are important as most pollsters have used a turnout filter based on 2012, when Hispanic turnout under performed their demographic whereas the reverse is true today where they are substantially out performing it. The same is true of the gender divide.
From a betting perspective, it's worth bearing in mind that - while it's quite believable that there could be a systematic error in the polls - it wouldn't necessarily work in Trump's favour. I believe Nate Silver thinks there's more reason to expect an error in Clinton's favour.
That makes spread betting on numbers of electoral college votes very risky, I think, whichever direction you're betting in.
Didn't see that coming - but pleased with result. For me the worst aspect of the referendum was how id divided the country and legitimised nationalist and racist sentiment. Theresa May hadn't begun to address this, taking bluntly of supporting the 52% and expecting the rest to live with it - this will force her to take seriously uniting the country.
Can't see parliament voting down A50 after the referendum, but Govt will have to take into account wider interests now, a very good thing in my view.
This constituency on the outskirts of Liverpool is a strong Labour seat. They voted 58 - 42 for Leave, and even the Remainers have accepted the vote. So I'd fancy a bet that the local MP isn't going to commit political suicide. So I ask again ... what is the point of it?
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
I think the government should just make a virtue of necessity and hold a Commons vote on A50 ASAP. on the understanding that if the Commons rejects A50, a general election will have to be held.
Yes, that would be my route as well, put a bill before Parliament by the end of November and have it voted through by the end of January.
Steve Schale, Florida election expert, indicates a big day for Dems in the state yesterday. Spike again in Hispanics including large increases in NPA's in Hispanic communities :
This will make leaving the EU much more likely as the Country will act with fury if there is any attempt to prevent the will of the people.
Apart from the 48% who voted to Remain and the x % (a rising number reportedly) who regret voting to leave.
*sigh* Every* poll asking if people are happy/sad about the referendum result has shown a win for happy, asking how people would vote in a second referendum has shown a win for Leave, and asking if people would like a second referendum has shown a big majority for no.
*if there are one or two exceptions to that I stand corrected and revise 'every' to 'almost every'
Nailed on General Election now for Spring 2017. Remember folks - the Tories do not have a working majority, especially on this issue. Too many rebels, too many Euro loyalists with a grudge to bear against the 3 Brexiteers and duplicitous Tessie in Number 10.
What my party does about it remains the issue. Jezbollah seem insistent that we win back all those Labour "heartlands" in the midlands and north by explaining how they have been Idiots allowing themselves to be Fooled by Lies and anyway aren't you a bit of a Racist anyway?
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
I think the government should just make a virtue of necessity and hold a Commons vote on A50 ASAP. on the understanding that if the Commons rejects A50, a general election will have to be held.
I suspect the government would win an A50 vote before Parliament but this episode is symptomatic of a wider truth, which is that the establishment are going to attempt to block and thwart the will of the people at every possible turn... The only way TM can combat this is with another 100 people on the benches behind her.
If gov lose the appeal then PM should make the Commons vote on triggering Article 50 a vote of confidence so that, if vote lost, a GE could be held early 2017.
Didn't see that coming - but pleased with result. For me the worst aspect of the referendum was how id divided the country and legitimised nationalist and racist sentiment. Theresa May hadn't begun to address this, taking bluntly of supporting the 52% and expecting the rest to live with it - this will force her to take seriously uniting the country.
Can't see parliament voting down A50 after the referendum, but Govt will have to take into account wider interests now, a very good thing in my view.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
I think the government should just make a virtue of necessity and hold a Commons vote on A50 ASAP. on the understanding that if the Commons rejects A50, a general election will have to be held.
Yes, that would be my route as well, put a bill before Parliament by the end of November and have it voted through by the end of January.
You can't get a bill like that sorted in less than a month.
Anyway, its a legal principle which the Government would prefer to have clarified one way or the other.
Also an excuse for a bit more time and delay. I doubt May is chomping at the bit to rush Art 50
The establishment is going to try and thwart Brexit at every turn. Theresa May will not be able to get this done without a general election and a landslide majority.
She needs to get started on planning a Spring election now
You may be right that the establishment will try to thwart Brexit, but Theresa May is also part of the establishment.
This constituency on the outskirts of Liverpool is a strong Labour seat. They voted 58 - 42 for Leave, and even the Remainers have accepted the vote. So I'd fancy a bet that the local MP isn't going to commit political suicide. So I ask again ... what is the point of it?
Many of the Lords will have no qualms about voting against. This is what Remainers mean when they pretend to care about Democracy/Rule of Law - they want unelected peers to overturn a direct vote by the people.
If gov lose the appeal then PM should make the Commons vote on triggering Article 50 a vote of confidence so that, if vote lost, a GE could be held early 2017.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act makes that a non starter
Nailed on General Election now for Spring 2017. Remember folks - the Tories do not have a working majority, especially on this issue. Too many rebels, too many Euro loyalists with a grudge to bear against the 3 Brexiteers and duplicitous Tessie in Number 10.
What my party does about it remains the issue. Jezbollah seem insistent that we win back all those Labour "heartlands" in the midlands and north by explaining how they have been Idiots allowing themselves to be Fooled by Lies and anyway aren't you a bit of a Racist anyway?
As far as I can make out, Jez himself wants out of the EU, but carry on with free movement of people as well. An unusual position to say the least.
I'm happy with the court ruling. I like parliament to make the final decisions.
It will also be good to see those MPs who jumped on the anti-Brexit bandwagon voting for Article 50 through fear of losing their seats. The agonising will be sweet!
Didn't see that coming - but pleased with result. For me the worst aspect of the referendum was how id divided the country and legitimised nationalist and racist sentiment. Theresa May hadn't begun to address this, taking bluntly of supporting the 52% and expecting the rest to live with it - this will force her to take seriously uniting the country.
Can't see parliament voting down A50 after the referendum, but Govt will have to take into account wider interests now, a very good thing in my view.
Maybe that Titanic reference was about right?
"Expecting the the rest to live with it" that's called democracy son, majority rule, just like I had to to live with Blair as PM for ten years, the people have spoken whether you agree with them or not.
If gov lose the appeal then PM should make the Commons vote on triggering Article 50 a vote of confidence so that, if vote lost, a GE could be held early 2017.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act makes that a non starter
Not guaranteed to get through the Commons, but very unlikely to pass the Lords. Which means a year of delay with the Parliament Act or a fresh election (after repealing the nonsensical Fixed Term Act).
Nailed on General Election now for Spring 2017. Remember folks - the Tories do not have a working majority, especially on this issue. Too many rebels, too many Euro loyalists with a grudge to bear against the 3 Brexiteers and duplicitous Tessie in Number 10.
What my party does about it remains the issue. Jezbollah seem insistent that we win back all those Labour "heartlands" in the midlands and north by explaining how they have been Idiots allowing themselves to be Fooled by Lies and anyway aren't you a bit of a Racist anyway?
Jezza should have backed BREXIT but your side of the party would have took their bats home.
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
I think the government should just make a virtue of necessity and hold a Commons vote on A50 ASAP. on the understanding that if the Commons rejects A50, a general election will have to be held.
If gov lose the appeal then PM should make the Commons vote on triggering Article 50 a vote of confidence so that, if vote lost, a GE could be held early 2017.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act makes that a non starter
No government can be bound by its precessor.
Not applicable in this instant, unless she intends to repeal or amend the FTPA
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
I think the government should just make a virtue of necessity and hold a Commons vote on A50 ASAP. on the understanding that if the Commons rejects A50, a general election will have to be held.
Yes, that would be my route as well, put a bill before Parliament by the end of November and have it voted through by the end of January.
It won't be Theresa Maybe's route though. If there's one thing she loves to do is take any excuse to delay and prevaricate.
I'm surprised the judgment went that way, but it is something the government should do anyway, as a matter of principle and in their own interests. Trying to bypass parliament on a core policy in a parliamentary democracy is a bad look. The government would also fail to get buy in from their MPs, who would otherwise be free to criticise whatever transpires.
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
Perhaps The Attorney General will be looking at situations vacant pages in The Times on Friday, before he as an interview without tea, biscuits or a chair.
Won't take long for the Government to confirm whether they're appealing or not.
So, say it gets through the Commons (far from guaranteed), and the Lords reject it (likely). What then? Parliament Act and another year of delay, or General Election?
Tough choice. It would be very tempting to go with the latter, and probably easier to sell than such a long delay to trigger, even if that would not be the end of the world in practice.
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
The British Parliament changes it's collective mind all the time.
Excellent decision by the court. To allow a massive constitutional upheaval on the whim of some fly-by-night PM is the road to tyranny. Most of the civilized world has modelled their democracies on our parliamentary system. That some barbarians prefer the Tinpot Napoleon approach fills me with sadness and angst. Have they no respect for our ancient traditions, values and ways?
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
Wrong. The Referendum Act does not define 'winning' or lay down any consequences of a particular result.
"They will be pleased - so much anger to harness, an appeal to win, a lot of people, as on here, confusing the motivations to deny Brexit with the much more abstract question of parliamentary and executive authority."
I've asked this question before, but what is the point of having a discussion about Article 50 in Parliament?
They'll either vote in favour, so what was achieved? Or they'll vote against and say to the voters ... up yours. Political suicide and mayhem.
The point is parliament is sovereign. They are free to commit political suicide if they want, but if the government does not have the power to formalise the decision, then parliament has to, it's not a question of worth of discussing it but legal process.
Obviously the claimants want parliament to vote no, this is a way of preventing brexit, but that is not the point at all really, it's who has the power to make the formal decision, given under our arrangements the referendum was not binding. Since it wasn't, someone has to formally do it. If an appeal says the government can do it, fine.
I kept on telling you all George is a top bloke who is warm and witty.
It won't be long until you also agree with me that he's our next Prime Minister.
He has a rough edge too though that puts people off. Even in his witty Spectator speech the humour wasn't entirely an affectionate roasting.
He also has to overcome that he has that very special, hard to define, punchable quality.
I'd agree with you on that, but I suspect that demonstrating the ability to take a good kicking (which he certainly has) and come up smiling might go some way to overcoming that. And the public commitment to parliament was smart politics - as was the humorous distancing of himself from Cameron.
I wouldn't be betting on him as the next PM just yet without very good odds indeed, but I also would not rule out his chances.
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
The British Parliament changes it's collective mind all the time.
Not after a referendum where the will of the people has been made clear.
Well... Not unless they actually want people on the streets and civil unrest.
Using Article 50 wasn't, so the convention may not apply.
I don't understand why the Parliament Act wouldn't be appropriate, however, since in prospect all primary legislation falls within it (albeit money bills are treated slightly differently).
The British Parliament is sovereign. It voted through a Bill that said there would be a referendum on our future in the EU and if a majority voted to leave the EU then we'd leave.
The British Parliament changes it's collective mind all the time.
Not after a referendum where the will of the people has been made clear.
Well... Not unless they actually want people on the streets and civil unrest.
One reason they will probably vote it through fine, and if the lords try to prevent it they'll suffer. Hence why it is not a big deal that the claimants want to prevent it via this method, since it probably won't work, and it settles an important legal question of who has the power (and under our system it is not the people directly)
Correction, the Government has been given leave to appeal, they are yet to decide whether to appeal.
No, they are just establishing right to appeal and the speed of it.
I guess the Attorney General will have to have a think and chat with Mrs May.
I think they have been given the right to put it to judicial review. I don't know the process but I assume that takes years. I can't see them wanting to drag this out unless they REALLY don't want Brexit to happen and are grasping at anything that will put off the evil day.
Jim Messina, Obama's campaign manager in 2012, in the "New York Times" on national polls, "little data" and the state of the race with a few days to go :
I doubt it, the government will just put a new bill before Parliament, "Bill to enable Article 50". The Commons will vote it through and even the Lords will have no choice or it will trigger a huge constitutional crisis where the unelected chamber is blocking the will of the people. The PM will create 100 new peers if necessary.
I think the government should just make a virtue of necessity and hold a Commons vote on A50 ASAP. on the understanding that if the Commons rejects A50, a general election will have to be held.
Agreed.
Agreed on the asap, but if I were May, I would not mention a general election (which is pretty well a given anyway). Put Labour on the spot on whether they support A50 or not; refuse any amendments; don't allow them to muddy the water.
Correction, the Government has been given leave to appeal, they are yet to decide whether to appeal.
No, they are just establishing right to appeal and the speed of it.
I guess the Attorney General will have to have a think and chat with Mrs May.
I think they have been given the right to put it to judicial review. I don't know the process but I assume that takes years. I can't see them wanting to drag this out unless they REALLY don't want Brexit to happen and are grasping at anything that will put off the evil day.
If there is one thing the politicians enjoy doing it is kicking cans. Particularly Theresa Maybe. I bet she is McLovin' the courts decision really
Our system - which is based on rule of law, representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, not random plebiscites - has decided that the government's case is too weak.
This will be appealed, and as it happens I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this decision (because I think the government will come up with a better case).
But if not, there will be an election and of course Brexit will be validated across the country. Labour will be decimated and May will get a very generous majority to continue on the course she has started.
The demented comments on here about "judicial meddling" and abolishing the House of Lords seem to from those who'd actually prefer some kind of authoritarian rule. Unsurprisingly it's from the same folk ramping Trump.
Comments
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/21/in-safe-hands-whose-finger-is-on-the-article-50-button/
Corbyn needs to side with May on this or Labour is finished
Speculation, speculation, speculation.
Clinton 39 .. Trump 40
http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/11/Crosstabs-2016-10-WBUR-NH-General-6.pdf
Or was that Alec Baldwin?
She needs to get started on planning a Spring election now
That makes spread betting on numbers of electoral college votes very risky, I think, whichever direction you're betting in.
For me the worst aspect of the referendum was how id divided the country and legitimised nationalist and racist sentiment. Theresa May hadn't begun to address this, taking bluntly of supporting the 52% and expecting the rest to live with it - this will force her to take seriously uniting the country.
Can't see parliament voting down A50 after the referendum, but Govt will have to take into account wider interests now, a very good thing in my view.
Maybe that Titanic reference was about right?
Clinton 44 .. Trump 44
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
This constituency on the outskirts of Liverpool is a strong Labour seat. They voted 58 - 42 for Leave, and even the Remainers have accepted the vote. So I'd fancy a bet that the local MP isn't going to commit political suicide. So I ask again ... what is the point of it?
He might well tell me to eff off of course.
"No wait, hold on, er, what I mean is..."
Every* poll asking if people are happy/sad about the referendum result has shown a win for happy, asking how people would vote in a second referendum has shown a win for Leave, and asking if people would like a second referendum has shown a big majority for no.
*if there are one or two exceptions to that I stand corrected and revise 'every' to 'almost every'
What my party does about it remains the issue. Jezbollah seem insistent that we win back all those Labour "heartlands" in the midlands and north by explaining how they have been Idiots allowing themselves to be Fooled by Lies and anyway aren't you a bit of a Racist anyway?
We need an election ASAP.
I guess the Attorney General will have to have a think and chat with Mrs May.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
Anyway, its a legal principle which the Government would prefer to have clarified one way or the other.
Also an excuse for a bit more time and delay. I doubt May is chomping at the bit to rush Art 50
It will also be good to see those MPs who jumped on the anti-Brexit bandwagon voting for Article 50 through fear of losing their seats. The agonising will be sweet!
Not guaranteed to get through the Commons, but very unlikely to pass the Lords. Which means a year of delay with the Parliament Act or a fresh election (after repealing the nonsensical Fixed Term Act).
Oh hang on they did anyway
Perhaps the legal challenge was a cunning plan by the Kippers all along?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted/data.htm
Obviously the claimants want parliament to vote no, this is a way of preventing brexit, but that is not the point at all really, it's who has the power to make the formal decision, given under our arrangements the referendum was not binding. Since it wasn't, someone has to formally do it. If an appeal says the government can do it, fine.
And the public commitment to parliament was smart politics - as was the humorous distancing of himself from Cameron.
I wouldn't be betting on him as the next PM just yet without very good odds indeed, but I also would not rule out his chances.
Well... Not unless they actually want people on the streets and civil unrest.
I don't understand why the Parliament Act wouldn't be appropriate, however, since in prospect all primary legislation falls within it (albeit money bills are treated slightly differently).
Really should change my account name as I'm no longer a Lib Dem
Jim Messina, Obama's campaign manager in 2012, in the "New York Times" on national polls, "little data" and the state of the race with a few days to go :
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/opinion/campaign-stops/the-election-polls-that-matter.html?ref=opinion
Also the manifesto contained a pledge to keep us in the single market
Full judgment for those interested in constitutional law.
GE and reform of the HoL hurrah
and maybe shaft some lawyers in the process
I bet she is McLovin' the courts decision really
Our system - which is based on rule of law, representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, not random plebiscites - has decided that the government's case is too weak.
This will be appealed, and as it happens I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this decision (because I think the government will come up with a better case).
But if not, there will be an election and of course Brexit will be validated across the country. Labour will be decimated and May will get a very generous majority to continue on the course she has started.
The demented comments on here about "judicial meddling" and abolishing the House of Lords seem to from those who'd actually prefer some kind of authoritarian rule. Unsurprisingly it's from the same folk ramping Trump.