Can anyone actually explain what constitutional principle is at stake here? Was a parliament voted needed to apply to join?
The principle is about when Crown prerogative can be used by ministers. The principle is that the Government cannot use royal prerogative to override domestic legislation made by parliament. Article 50 is not a purely foreign relations matter (which would make it more likely to be royal prerogative) since the government accepts it will affect existing domestic legislation. The Court ruled that this is the case and the principle stands and is relevant in this situation.
The Great Repeal Law will enshrine all the domestic legislation that matters into UK law. So this does not make sense at all. It is just wealthy metropolitan judges plucking reasoning out the air to try to keep us in the EU.
538 are giving the probability of no overall majority in the electoral college as 1.6%. That's comprised of 0.6% for a 269-269 tie and (presumably) 1.0% for McMullin taking Utah and Clinton and Trump both getting under 269.
If NOM happens Pence will be in with a good chance, but he will have to be very careful how he plays it. I reckon at 980 he's a buy.
He deliberately made the referendum advisory rather than legally enforceable as his backstop in the event the referendum vote went 'the wrong way'.
Top trolling.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if no thought on the eventuality of a Leave vote was ever made. It is one of the many reasons why the establishment lost this vote.
Sterling up 1% against the US $, up 1.3% against the Euro. I wonder whether Tesco have called in Unilever yet to demand price reductions on their products?
There may be a few crazies (Nick Clegg, Kenneth Clarke) who genuinely love the EU, but for most it was just a part of the post War consensus.
I know this is pedantic, but to call it part of the post War consensus is highly misleading. It was actually the first step in breaking the post War consensus of managed decline.
No it was the exact opposite. It was a way of enshrining that managed decline into our whole political system.
People are assuming this is Trump's back up plan if it loses, but it could equally be part of his media strategy if he wins. Bypass the 'dishonest press' and communicate directly with the people.
I remember when Cameron said he would invoke A50 immediately after the vote, that everyone said that it would be a breach of constitutional law.
Oh wait, no they didn't.
And he didn't, either.
Bottom line is that no one had really thought about prerogative versus parliament in legal, as opposed to political terms. Reading the judgment, I don't see how it gets overturned (FWIW) - but if May persists in the appeal and loses again then it truly does weaken her position. If she bites the bullet now, then not so much.
People are assuming this is Trump's back up plan if it loses, but it could equally be part of his media strategy if he wins. Bypass the 'dishonest press' and communicate directly with the people.
Yes. I don't think for a minute that Parliament is going to pass this.
Richard, I have a massive amount of respect for you, but in this case I think you're insane. Politicians love winning elections and gaining power. There may be a few crazies (Nick Clegg, Kenneth Clarke) who genuinely love the EU, but for most it was just a part of the post War consensus.
There are no votes to be won in Sunderland or Stoke-on-Trent or a hundred other Labour seats for opposing this. On the contrary, MPs who opposed the overwhelming will of their constituents would find themselves without a job come the next election. Even inside the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable and Paddy Ashdown have said the will of the people must be respected.
This all assumes that Brexit really matters as much to the average voter as it does to the political anoraks such as ourselves who comment here. I am far from convinced that it is such a salient issue with people - whichever way they voted. I suspect most people are now sick to death with the issue.
People are assuming this is Trump's back up plan if it loses, but it could equally be part of his media strategy if he wins. Bypass the 'dishonest press' and communicate directly with the people.
He's Berlusconi reincarnate. Hell, just go full Putin and seize control of the entire media.
From the day of the vote it was evident the elite hated the vote, so I suppose we should not be surprised wealthy London judges made this decision. The game is to weaken the UK's negotiating position by forcing May to reveal as many negotiation positions as possible. Then they can argue that the bad deal is worse than EU membership to try to persuade us to stay in.
No it isn't. Whether you agree with it or not, I am pretty sure the aim is to prevent the UK shooting itself in the foot economically (and probably in every other way) with a hard Brexit. Why is it that people assert they have pure motives themselves for holding the views they do and acting on them but are reluctant to acknowledge it's also true for people who disagree with them It occurs to me that that may be a prime reason we have got to the mess we are in: that each side refuses to acknowledge that there is any validity to any argument put forward by the other. Myself, I hold a view but I am willing to listen to actual evidence which might require me to change my mind.
"Voters fear the media far more than Russian hackers when it comes to tampering with election results.
According to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, 46 percent of likely voters believe the news media is "the primary threat that might try to change the election results."
The national political establishment was the second most-suspected group at 21 percent, and another 13 percent were undecided.
Foreign interests, including "Russian hackers," ranked fourth with 10 percent and "local political bosses" came in last with 9 percent of likely voters as the main threat to truthful election results.
I suspect most people are now sick to death with the issue.
I think that's right. We should just declare it a success - Britain proved the doom-sayers wrong! - and move on to a glorious future as if nothing ever happened.
Can anyone actually explain what constitutional principle is at stake here? Was a parliament voted needed to apply to join?
The principle is about when Crown prerogative can be used by ministers. The principle is that the Government cannot use royal prerogative to override domestic legislation made by parliament. Article 50 is not a purely foreign relations matter (which would make it more likely to be royal prerogative) since the government accepts it will affect existing domestic legislation. The Court ruled that this is the case and the principle stands and is relevant in this situation.
The Great Repeal Law will enshrine all the domestic legislation that matters into UK law. So this does not make sense at all. It is just wealthy metropolitan judges plucking reasoning out the air to try to keep us in the EU.
You are assuming The Great Repeal Bill passes - which the judges can't when making a ruling now. In law, A50 invocation is irrevocable, so they have to deal with what is, not what the government promises.
From the day of the vote it was evident the elite hated the vote, so I suppose we should not be surprised wealthy London judges made this decision. The game is to weaken the UK's negotiating position by forcing May to reveal as many negotiation positions as possible. Then they can argue that the bad deal is worse than EU membership to try to persuade us to stay in.
No it isn't. Whether you agree with it or not, I am pretty sure the aim is to prevent the UK shooting itself in the foot economically (and probably in every other way) with a hard Brexit. Why is it that people assert they have pure motives themselves for holding the views they do and acting on them but are reluctant to acknowledge it's also true for people who disagree with them It occurs to me that that may be a prime reason we have got to the mess we are in: that each side refuses to acknowledge that there is any validity to any argument put forward by the other. Myself, I hold a view but I am willing to listen to actual evidence which might require me to change my mind.
It's neither.
The decision is open and transparently a correct read of constitutional law, no more no less. I was a Brexit campaigner (though not part of either VL or Leave EU), and even I can see that there is nothing else here to see. And any appeal has no point at all.
They have not attacked Royal Prerogative (which I was concerned about), but simply made the point that the 1972 Act is necessarily negated by the Notification of Article 50 Because Art 50 is not revocable in its own text. Therefore the ratification process of Lisbon has altered the nature of Prerogative IN THIS CASE ONLY.
He wants to discuss the Government's strategy. He wants to know their negotiating position. But he won't go against Brexit because the people have spoken. So if they don't like the negotiating position, they will vote against? Easy enough question, nut no answer forthcoming.
The Labour tactics seems to be to argue for an open discussion, claim that the Government's version is not acceptable (whatever it is) and then vote reluctantly against Article 50. But it will be the Government's fault, electorate, not ours.
Can you point me to the positive early voting figures for Hillary in WI ?
From the latest edition of the "Chicago Tribune" :
"Republicans may be having trouble flipping another state, Wisconsin, that voted for Obama in the last two elections. Overall turnout in Wisconsin is outpacing 2012, with bigger shares coming from major Democratic counties such as Dane and Milwaukee."
Clearly the gay ex-Olympic fencer should be dismissed if that's all you can say about him. The other two did what lawyers should be doing: setting up practices and charging massive fees.
We accept the new deal in a GE or a 2nd vote, or the "new deal" is called Schroedinger's Brexit, and really means continued membership.
Cameron's deal will get 'Lisboned' and repackaged as something else. It's a good starting point for negotiations - certainly a better one than hard Brexit WTO style.
'3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.'
So staying in the EU through the back door, that will go down well.
Slow John, that's not what I said.
I said we're likely to get a vote on it, probably via an amendment to the bill.
Whether we stay in or out is dependent on point 1) after all there are informed commentators who say Mrs May told Nissan we're staying in the customs union.
But I think you're right. This makes a very soft Brexit much more likely: if parliament has input beforehand. It means staying in SM and Customs Union
May should call the vote asap. If you read the judgement it is unlikely to be overturned in December. And there's no way she can go to the ECJ. That really would mean civil war
I think if we do stay in the Customs Unions & Single Market it'll be dressed up as a transitional deal, which we'll then renew years on when we've moved on.
There was a piece I read from a Leaver (cannot find the link at the moment) which said we shouldn't leave now, we're at the wrong time of the economic cycle to do so, and should wait for a decade or so, once we've got the deficit down further, and sorted out our trade imbalances.
I think that's where we're headed. Been saying it for a while. We'll get the very softest Brexit possible, but it will be dressed as a "transitional arrangement"', to calm the sceptics. We might find that transition lasts a loooong time.
Bill Cash will go mad. UKIP might get an extra couple of MPs. Most voters will shrug and accept it. But TMay really will have to bring down net migration. One way or another.
You might well be right, but the report's author made clear he felt his data did not necessarily support 'white flight':
“White people are leaving urban areas in a disproportionate number – and they avoid moving to diverse areas when they do move. But we can’t say that is white flight because the motivations are many and various,” he said, arguing it could be to do with the dream of a place in the country or an older cohort retiring to rural communities.
Clearly the gay ex-Olympic fencer should be dismissed if that's all you can say about him. The other two did what lawyers should be doing: setting up practices and charging massive fees.
I have a good deal of time for many Remainers - indeed I was one myself. What I have no time for however are TORY Remainers. Or at least those Tory Remainers who regard staying in the EU as more important than anything else. Are they aware that they staunchly backed a party at the last election committed to holding a referendum? Why didn't they back Ed Milibnd instead? Oh yes because they were so affronted by his mildly egalitarian principles that they were prepared to take the risk that we would leave the EU. No sympathy.
Particular mention to the business establishment now up in arms.
Yes. I don't think for a minute that Parliament is going to pass this.
Richard, I have a massive amount of respect for you, but in this case I think you're insane. Politicians love winning elections and gaining power. There may be a few crazies (Nick Clegg, Kenneth Clarke) who genuinely love the EU, but for most it was just a part of the post War consensus.
There are no votes to be won in Sunderland or Stoke-on-Trent or a hundred other Labour seats for opposing this. On the contrary, MPs who opposed the overwhelming will of their constituents would find themselves without a job come the next election. Even inside the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable and Paddy Ashdown have said the will of the people must be respected.
Hmm. I CAN now see a process where Brexit is stopped. Let's say A50 is delayed, probably in the Lords (highly likely). So we won't have triggered it by the French and German elections. The new German and French governments offer us a new deal. Sarko wants this.
And see here: the Germans are really keen for us to stay, as they now see the damage Brexit does to the EU
@rcs1000 on getting people on board the Brexit train, I think that's something the government doesn't understand. Brexit is possible because thr leave coalition. Was wide enough to win the vote. Now the government needs to move on from the leave coalition and build a Brexit coalition. It is possible to get a deal done with the EU that pleases 70-75% of people in the country to a minimum level. The unfortunate part is that the Brexit coalition may not be the same as the leave coalition. Until someone in government realises this and also realises that the 52% of leave voters are going to be impossible satisfy then we're stuck in a sort of purgatory where 20% of remain voters and campaigners are trying to stop Brexit and 20% of leave voters are trying to close the borders and end all immigration while 60% of the nation just looks on in despair.
Passing a vote and getting as many MPs on board as possible is step one of the process.
Max - can I say that I think this is a very insightful and important post, knowing that we've been on opposite sides of the argument. Even as a remainer, I've little love for the EU, but it's more about who we are as a country, and I've seen precious little from anyone about how the deep divisions in the country can be healed - it's the 60% in the middle who need to come together and it can't be done just based on the 52%.
I don't agree with those saying the Lib Dems would scupper an A50 bill by the way - there's something of a split within the party and the comments from Vince and Paddy reflect the views of a lot of members. I'd expect the Lib Dem position to be an amendment to put staying in the single market as an explicit negotiating objective, and for a 2nd referendum on exit terms (still fudging what the 'reject' option would be) as the price for supporting the bill.
One warning though - if it does go to the Lords, the Lib Dems won't be fussed about being seen to create a crisis as they've little respect for the instution as it stands.
Yes. I don't think for a minute that Parliament is going to pass this.
Richard, I have a massive amount of respect for you, but in this case I think you're insane. Politicians love winning elections and gaining power. There may be a few crazies (Nick Clegg, Kenneth Clarke) who genuinely love the EU, but for most it was just a part of the post War consensus.
There are no votes to be won in Sunderland or Stoke-on-Trent or a hundred other Labour seats for opposing this. On the contrary, MPs who opposed the overwhelming will of their constituents would find themselves without a job come the next election. Even inside the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable and Paddy Ashdown have said the will of the people must be respected.
Hmm. I CAN now see a process where Brexit is stopped. Let's say A50 is delayed, probably in the Lords (highly likely). So we won't have triggered it by the French and German elections. The new German and French governments offer us a new deal. Sarko wants this.
And see here: the Germans are really keen for us to stay, as they now see the damage Brexit does to the EU
From that poll: "Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters say they are now certain how they will vote. Among these voters, Trump has a 10-point lead over Clinton – 53% to 43%. Johnson gets two percent (2%) and Stein one percent (1%). This is the first time any candidate has crossed the 50% mark. Among those who still could change their minds, it’s Clinton 36%, Trump 36%, Johnson 22% and Stein six percent (6%)."
Hmm. Reading the Government's statement, has the current Prime Minister just admitted that she does not command the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons? Because if she does, those words are irrelevant to anything; they only have meaning if she doesn't.
Probably correct. More interesting in a man eat dog way is that a larger percentage of Leave voters are in denial over Brexit too. We all have our denials but they are not the same ones.
Survey Monkey (all fieldwork on or post Email Black Friday) has Hillary leading in FL, CO, NC and PA. But only just clinging to a lead in Wisconsin...
• North Carolina OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +8
• Colorado OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +4
• Wisconsin OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +2
• Iowa OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Trump +10
• Florida OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +3
• Pennsylvania OCT. 27-NOV. 2 SurveyMonkey
Clinton +5
Oof Wisconsin, very worrying for her, how is the early vote there?
Good for Trump.
Excellent for Clinton.
Can you point me to the positive early voting figures for Hillary in WI ?
"But Republicans may be having trouble flipping another state, Wisconsin, that voted for Obama in the last two elections. Overall turnout in Wisconsin is outpacing 2012, with bigger shares coming from major Democratic counties such as Dane and Milwaukee."
Comments
"Owen Smith says, if there is an article 50 bill, Labour should amend it to include a second EU referendum." [Guardian]
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/year-of-next-general-election
Hope it goes well.
TX - Clinton 42 .. Trump 46 .. 2,048
NV - Clinton 43 .. Trump 44 .. 937
GA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45 .. 2,722
VA - Clinton 48 .. Trump 40 .. 1,942
AZ - Clinton 43 .. Trump 43 .. 1,461
NH - Clinton 47 .. Trump 37 .. 658
OH - Clinton 41 .. Trump 46 .. 1,728
PA - Clinton 47 .. Trump 42 .. 2,177
FL - Clinton 47 .. Trump 44 .. 2,901
IA - Clinton 37 .. Trump 47 .. 1,226
WI - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42 .. 1,271
CO - Clinton 44 .. Trump 40 .. 1,631
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 41 .. 1,836
UT - Clinton 30 .. Trump 33 .. McMullin 25
https://www.surveymonkey.com/elections/map?poll=sm-lv-cps
If NOM happens Pence will be in with a good chance, but he will have to be very careful how he plays it. I reckon at 980 he's a buy.
I remember when Cameron said he would invoke A50 immediately after the vote, that everyone said that it would be a breach of constitutional law.
Oh wait, no they didn't.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if no thought on the eventuality of a Leave vote was ever made. It is one of the many reasons why the establishment lost this vote.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/introducing-telegraph-premium/
I wonder whether Tesco have called in Unilever yet to demand price reductions on their products?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6022.html
https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/794138487796727808
Bulls**t, we haven't even invoked A50 yet.
Clinton 42 .. Trump 45
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_nov3
Bottom line is that no one had really thought about prerogative versus parliament in legal, as opposed to political terms.
Reading the judgment, I don't see how it gets overturned (FWIW) - but if May persists in the appeal and loses again then it truly does weaken her position. If she bites the bullet now, then not so much.
We voted to Leave, we're Leaving, today's judgement doesn't overturn the vote.
For all intents and purposes the UK's membership of the EU is sine die.
Bregurgitation ?
It occurs to me that that may be a prime reason we have got to the mess we are in: that each side refuses to acknowledge that there is any validity to any argument put forward by the other. Myself, I hold a view but I am willing to listen to actual evidence which might require me to change my mind.
According to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, 46 percent of likely voters believe the news media is "the primary threat that might try to change the election results."
The national political establishment was the second most-suspected group at 21 percent, and another 13 percent were undecided.
Foreign interests, including "Russian hackers," ranked fourth with 10 percent and "local political bosses" came in last with 9 percent of likely voters as the main threat to truthful election results.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/voters-media-more-likely-than-russian-hackers-to-tamper-with-election/article/2606302?custom_click=rss
World
United
News
Television
Service
One of the area's in the report is near where I live(Toller) and the white population is down to 10%.
Bradford highlighted in national study about segregation
A REPORT saying white and ethnic communities are growing apart in cities such as Bradford has sparked heated debate among community leaders.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14838041.Debate_rages_in_Bradford_over_segregation_report/
On the 5 stages of grief, 32% of Remain voters are stuck in denial over Brexit. High Court ruling won't have helped! https://t.co/LYBavFzzXd https://t.co/p19gnYYrQc
In law, A50 invocation is irrevocable, so they have to deal with what is, not what the government promises.
The decision is open and transparently a correct read of constitutional law, no more no less. I was a Brexit campaigner (though not part of either VL or Leave EU), and even I can see that there is nothing else here to see. And any appeal has no point at all.
They have not attacked Royal Prerogative (which I was concerned about), but simply made the point that the 1972 Act is necessarily negated by the Notification of Article 50 Because Art 50 is not revocable in its own text. Therefore the ratification process of Lisbon has altered the nature of Prerogative IN THIS CASE ONLY.
He wants to discuss the Government's strategy. He wants to know their negotiating position. But he won't go against Brexit because the people have spoken. So if they don't like the negotiating position, they will vote against? Easy enough question, nut no answer forthcoming.
The Labour tactics seems to be to argue for an open discussion, claim that the Government's version is not acceptable (whatever it is) and then vote reluctantly against Article 50. But it will be the Government's fault, electorate, not ours.
Yes, they do think we are stupid.
"Republicans may be having trouble flipping another state, Wisconsin, that voted for Obama in the last two elections. Overall turnout in Wisconsin is outpacing 2012, with bigger shares coming from major Democratic counties such as Dane and Milwaukee."
we're renowned for our outgoing cheery optimism
it's why we're the backdrop for Winterfell
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/07/the-case-against-democracy
“White people are leaving urban areas in a disproportionate number – and they avoid moving to diverse areas when they do move. But we can’t say that is white flight because the motivations are many and various,” he said, arguing it could be to do with the dream of a place in the country or an older cohort retiring to rural communities.
[Guardian]
Particular mention to the business establishment now up in arms.
only this time Mrs M will have a stronger negotiating hand.
I don't agree with those saying the Lib Dems would scupper an A50 bill by the way - there's something of a split within the party and the comments from Vince and Paddy reflect the views of a lot of members. I'd expect the Lib Dem position to be an amendment to put staying in the single market as an explicit negotiating objective, and for a 2nd referendum on exit terms (still fudging what the 'reject' option would be) as the price for supporting the bill.
One warning though - if it does go to the Lords, the Lib Dems won't be fussed about being seen to create a crisis as they've little respect for the instution as it stands.
But it's Ras, so safe to ignore....
Reading the Government's statement, has the current Prime Minister just admitted that she does not command the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons?
Because if she does, those words are irrelevant to anything; they only have meaning if she doesn't.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-early-voting-20161103-story.html
Clinton 45 .. Trump 44
https://www.scribd.com/document/329707080/Saguaro-Strategies-Arizona-Survey-October-29-31