Funny given that we were taken into the EEC without any recourse to Parliament. Like I said. Europhile hypocrites.
That said I think it is right that Parliament make the decision even if I think that might mean we do not leave. But then I am not a hypocrite like the Remoaners.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
If it a question of:
"(a) the interpretation of the Treaties;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union"
Then the Court must refer.
If the interpretation of Article 50 is at stake, it must be referred. But I'm far from clear it is.
Neither of those cases apply. It is not the interpretation of a treaty as it is UK domestic law not treaty law and it is not concerning the acts of any EU institutions. There is no case to be ruled on at the ECJ.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Doesn't appear to be much of a surge from Tim Farron's little band of helpers. Going backwards as Labour flat line and UKIP's on-going leadership farce.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Ta, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the treaty.
''Well, we do have sovereignty.. it's just in Parliament, not in the Crown.''
The mogster argument is that parliament abrogated its sovereignty by act of parliament for the voter to become sovereign just this one time.
Well, there was nothing explicit from Parliament saying that. The Government did say it would enact the decision of the people, but that doesn't bind Parliament.
Brexiteers don't do logic. That's a discipline for experts
It is amusing to see Eurofanatics who, for more than 40 years have argued in favour of the subverting of Parliamentary Sovereignty by the EEC/EU, suddenly discovering how vital it is to this country. Utter hypocrites.
A ruling caste will rarely surrender power willingly.
Funny given that we were taken into the EEC without any recourse to Parliament. Like I said. Europhile hypocrites.
That said I think it is right that Parliament make the decision even if I think that might mean we do not leave. But then I am not a hypocrite like the Remoaners.
Joining was a clear part of the Tory manifesto in 1970 though.
I am sure an A50 bill would pass with a substantial majority (with a lot of abstentions/absences), and it would tie a few Tories to the wheel for the rough seas ahead.
Nevada flipped into Trump's column on 538 and given the number of poll leads he has had there 2.8 on Betfair looks juicy. Could he have a Southwestern route (along with FL, NC, OH) by taking Colorado and New Mexico? He'd need to squeeze Johnson's votes.
You know it could be a really boring election night.
All the "known" states called within a minute or so (Including New Hampshire)
Some minor excitement as Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio all swap sides. But otherwise nothing but Hillary celebrating and Trump crying into his beer.
Even if only one state unexpectedly switches hands, I hope that it is one of the very early ones, just so I can see the BBC reaction. After the early(ish) declarations there is Colorado and Nevada - and it is not impossible that the election will be settled by Alaska!
Nevada flipped into Trump's column on 538 and given the number of poll leads he has had there 2.8 on Betfair looks juicy. Could he have a Southwestern route (along with FL, NC, OH) by taking Colorado and New Mexico? He'd need to squeeze Johnson's votes.
No.
Trump will lose NM by at least 8 and CO and NV by 6. AZ TCTC.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Ta, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the treaty.
Someone is questioning the application of Article 50 of the Treaty.
Nevada flipped into Trump's column on 538 and given the number of poll leads he has had there 2.8 on Betfair looks juicy. Could he have a Southwestern route (along with FL, NC, OH) by taking Colorado and New Mexico? He'd need to squeeze Johnson's votes.
No.
Trump will lose NM by at least 8 and CO and NV by 6. AZ TCTC.
Mike Pence is certainly pulling in the crowds in NM. I wouldn't rule out a surprise.
Wouldn't it just be easier to avoid all of that rubbish and get an enabling act through Parliament?
May needs to quit dicking about and put it to a vote.
Gosh...we agree on something SE. May needs to whack out a Parliamentary vote...simple..and if she doesn't win, she calls an election. She's playing two rounds of poker...the Parliamentary vote, she's holding a full house...if she loses (unlikely) she calls an election and plays a Royal Flush. She cannot lose.
I for one would like an election...it would get rid of Corbyn (one hopes), and May needs a decent majority to give her a fair hand of the Brexit poison chalice to go and hang herself with.
I have to say though she looked very sexy in that building site gear she had on yesterday....
O/T A fairly shocking dip in the spreads for Hillary over the past hour with her price now at 285 - 295, down 7 ECVs. Trump's spread has risen correspondingly to 241 - 251. Therefore at their respective mid-spread points they are now just 44 ECVs apart (290 vs 246). At this rate, with 5 days to go before the election next Tuesday, it appears possible that the Donald will be America's next President. Something which was unthinkable just one week ago.
I don't know how people have the courage to engage in spread betting. What I've read about it on here is enough to frighten me!
I have bought HC at 295 but only for 50p.
The stop/loss is 200, so maximal loss of £100. It is pretty highly geared.
Eh?? Your maximum stop loss is surely 50p x (295 - 200) = £47.50. I'm amazed that Sporting took your bet for 50p per ECV!
I understood it to be that the bottom would be 95 EV and top 495 EV; but it is a new venture for me.
Here's hoping for a Hillary landslide!
No, that's not how it works at all. The stop loss is simply to protect you should Hillary win fewer than 200 ECVs, otherwise it has no relevance to the bet. The mechanics are actually very simple - your strike price, i.e. the price at which you bought her was 295 ECVs and you therefore make a profit of 50p for every ECV she wins above that level - for example were she to win 315 ECVs you would win £10 (315 - 295 x 50p). If however she were to win only 275 ECVs you would lose £10 (295 - 275 x 50p). Got it?
Hannibal wouldn't've had this palaver. The day after the vote (or possibly several months beforehand) he would've led an army of men, horses and elephants through the Channel Tunnel to devastate the oblivious eurocrats.
Funny given that we were taken into the EEC without any recourse to Parliament. Like I said. Europhile hypocrites.
That said I think it is right that Parliament make the decision even if I think that might mean we do not leave. But then I am not a hypocrite like the Remoaners.
Joining was a clear part of the Tory manifesto in 1970 though.
I am sure an A50 bill would pass with a substantial majority (with a lot of abstentions/absences), and it would tie a few Tories to the wheel for the rough seas ahead.
Mrs May has stumbled at the first hurdle.
Holding and abiding by the result of the referendum was also a clear part of the Tory manifesto. Neither changes the fact that we went into the EEC without a Parliamentary vote.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Ta, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the treaty.
Someone is questioning the application of Article 50 of the Treaty.
No they are not. They are questioning the UK constitution. This is not about interpretation of the treaty. It is about the extent of the Royal prerogative.
Nevada flipped into Trump's column on 538 and given the number of poll leads he has had there 2.8 on Betfair looks juicy. Could he have a Southwestern route (along with FL, NC, OH) by taking Colorado and New Mexico? He'd need to squeeze Johnson's votes.
No.
Trump will lose NM by at least 8 and CO and NV by 6. AZ TCTC.
Mike Pence is certainly pulling in the crowds in NM. I wouldn't rule out a surprise.
"OUTers blasting the judgment = implicitly supporting idea that UK Gvt shd be able to change UK law via prerogative = foolish & dangerous"
No it was parliament itself that offered up that prospect to the electorate by voting by a massive majority to abide by the voters' decision via an act in 2015. That is Jacob Rees-Mogg's point. Parliament was sovereign in abrogating its sovereignty to the electorate on this matter.
Now parliament wants to go back on that offer, because its the 'wrong' result,.
Nevada flipped into Trump's column on 538 and given the number of poll leads he has had there 2.8 on Betfair looks juicy. Could he have a Southwestern route (along with FL, NC, OH) by taking Colorado and New Mexico? He'd need to squeeze Johnson's votes.
No.
Trump will lose NM by at least 8 and CO and NV by 6. AZ TCTC.
Mike Pence is certainly pulling in the crowds in NM. I wouldn't rule out a surprise.
Mike Pence is certainly pulling in the crowds in NM. I wouldn't rule out a surprise.
Trump might have had a good shot in NM normally, but Gary Johhson has drawn off too much support (ex-Governor of the State). He's not far off 20% in a lot of the polls.
It's not impossible, but Wisconsin/Michigan are more likely. Not in a tight race, in other words - if Trump wins he's pretty comfortable nationally.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Ta, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the treaty.
Someone is questioning the application of Article 50 of the Treaty.
No they are not. They are questioning the UK constitution. This is not about interpretation of the treaty. It is about the extent of the Royal prerogative.
The judgment does rest on the opinion that Article 50 is irrevocable, and that exercising it amounts to the forfeit of rights under the 1972 Act.
There are some (though not the government) that would dispute that, and this can only ultimately be adjudicated at the ECJ.
But the government would be mad to take anything to the ECJ and I see they have ruled it out tonight.
I have to say though she looked very sexy in that building site gear she had on yesterday....
Always knew you were a weirdo
You have don't have to say Sunil...I'm worried myself.
I guess I'm not the only one that is getting quite taken with Theresa...the name is sexy, and she doesn't come across as bonkers ideological, bunny boiler, pathological right winger female as we see with some (without mentioning names).
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Ta, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the treaty.
Someone is questioning the application of Article 50 of the Treaty.
No they are not. They are questioning the UK constitution. This is not about interpretation of the treaty. It is about the extent of the Royal prerogative.
It is whether the EU consider that Article 50 has been triggered. The EU will look to EU law not the UK constitution.
It has previously been suggested that May only has to raise an eyebrow for the EU to say she has invoked article 50.
Brexiteers don't do logic. That's a discipline for experts
It is amusing to see Eurofanatics who, for more than 40 years have argued in favour of the subverting of Parliamentary Sovereignty by the EEC/EU, suddenly discovering how vital it is to this country. Utter hypocrites.
Voluntarily joining a group of like minded countries to work together to common objectives is an exercise of sovereignty not a subversion of it.
Funny given that we were taken into the EEC without any recourse to Parliament. Like I said. Europhile hypocrites.
That said I think it is right that Parliament make the decision even if I think that might mean we do not leave. But then I am not a hypocrite like the Remoaners.
Joining was a clear part of the Tory manifesto in 1970 though.
I am sure an A50 bill would pass with a substantial majority (with a lot of abstentions/absences), and it would tie a few Tories to the wheel for the rough seas ahead.
Mrs May has stumbled at the first hurdle.
Holding and abiding by the result of the referendum was also a clear part of the Tory manifesto. Neither changes the fact that we went into the EEC without a Parliamentary vote.
You're being deliberately misleading as usual. The EEC Act, voted on in parliament, received Royal assent on the 17th of October 1972 and we officially became members on the 1st of January 1973.
I have to say though she looked very sexy in that building site gear she had on yesterday....
Always knew you were a weirdo
You have don't have to say Sunil...I'm worried myself.
I guess I'm not the only one that is getting quite taken with Theresa...the name is sexy, and she doesn't come across as bonkers ideological, bunny boiler, pathological right winger female as we see with some (without mentioning names).
"OUTers blasting the judgment = implicitly supporting idea that UK Gvt shd be able to change UK law via prerogative = foolish & dangerous"
No it was parliament itself that offered up that prospect to the electorate by voting by a massive majority to abide by the voters' decision via an act in 2015. That is Jacob Rees-Mogg's point. Parliament was sovereign in abrogating its sovereignty to the electorate on this matter.
Now parliament wants to go back on that offer, because its the 'wrong' result,.
The problem with that view is that parliament did not vote to abide by the outcome of the referendum. They voted to hold a referendum, not to abide by the outcome.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Ta, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the treaty.
Someone is questioning the application of Article 50 of the Treaty.
No they are not. They are questioning the UK constitution. This is not about interpretation of the treaty. It is about the extent of the Royal prerogative.
It is whether the EU consider that Article 50 has been triggered. The EU will look to EU law not the UK constitution.
It has previously been suggested that May only has to raise an eyebrow for the EU to say she has invoked article 50.
The treaty says
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
"OUTers blasting the judgment = implicitly supporting idea that UK Gvt shd be able to change UK law via prerogative = foolish & dangerous"
No it was parliament itself that offered up that prospect to the electorate by voting by a massive majority to abide by the voters' decision via an act in 2015. That is Jacob Rees-Mogg's point. Parliament was sovereign in abrogating its sovereignty to the electorate on this matter.
Now parliament wants to go back on that offer, because its the 'wrong' result,.
The problem with that view is that parliament did not vote to abide by the outcome of the referendum. They voted to hold a referendum, not to abide by the outcome.
Yeah, the government said they would enact the will of the people, Parliament didn't.
I have to say though she looked very sexy in that building site gear she had on yesterday....
Always knew you were a weirdo
You have don't have to say Sunil...I'm worried myself.
I guess I'm not the only one that is getting quite taken with Theresa...the name is sexy, and she doesn't come across as bonkers ideological, bunny boiler, pathological right winger female as we see with some (without mentioning names).
Actually, I was just referring to the builder's gear you mentioned!
Voters could be forgiven for looking at today and concluding the only way to get Brexit is to vote UKIP.
And that is dangerous for some major parties, methinks.
It's as dangerous for ardent Leavers to assume that people's GE vote will be motivated by their opinion of Brexit as it is for Remainers.
There is a precedent in Scotland.
I think we can reasonably assume that many Leavers will not be lending their vote to Remain MPs, especially in clear Leave voting constituencies.
Safe to assume then that the Remain voters of Richmond Park won't be voting for Goldsmith then? The EU never ranked highly as a GE voting priority, and I expect the same will apply at the next GE.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Ta, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the treaty.
Someone is questioning the application of Article 50 of the Treaty.
No they are not. They are questioning the UK constitution. This is not about interpretation of the treaty. It is about the extent of the Royal prerogative.
It is whether the EU consider that Article 50 has been triggered. The EU will look to EU law not the UK constitution.
It has previously been suggested that May only has to raise an eyebrow for the EU to say she has invoked article 50.
The treaty says
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
So the UK constitution would be what matters
Or rather how the EU interprets that - which would be how the European Court of Justice sees it as the supreme body for EU treaties.
''The problem with that view is that parliament did not vote to abide by the outcome of the referendum. They voted to hold a referendum, not to abide by the outcome. ''
When parliament votes to cede a decision to the EU, does it also vote to abide by that decision?
Funny given that we were taken into the EEC without any recourse to Parliament. Like I said. Europhile hypocrites.
That said I think it is right that Parliament make the decision even if I think that might mean we do not leave. But then I am not a hypocrite like the Remoaners.
Joining was a clear part of the Tory manifesto in 1970 though.
I am sure an A50 bill would pass with a substantial majority (with a lot of abstentions/absences), and it would tie a few Tories to the wheel for the rough seas ahead.
Mrs May has stumbled at the first hurdle.
Holding and abiding by the result of the referendum was also a clear part of the Tory manifesto. Neither changes the fact that we went into the EEC without a Parliamentary vote.
You're being deliberately misleading as usual. The EEC Act, voted on in parliament, received Royal assent on the 17th of October 1972 and we officially became members on the 1st of January 1973.
I am not being misleading at all. I leave that to you. The Treaty for us to join the EU was signed by Heath before any vote in Parliament and the Act was simply to bring in all the necessary changes to UK Law after the event and prior to accession on 1st January 1973.
This is exactly the same as invoking Article 50 and then having Parliament vote on the terms.
Wouldn't it just be easier to avoid all of that rubbish and get an enabling act through Parliament?
May needs to quit dicking about and put it to a vote.
Gosh...we agree on something SE. May needs to whack out a Parliamentary vote...simple..and if she doesn't win, she calls an election. She's playing two rounds of poker...the Parliamentary vote, she's holding a full house...if she loses (unlikely) she calls an election and plays a Royal Flush. She cannot lose.
I for one would like an election...it would get rid of Corbyn (one hopes), and May needs a decent majority to give her a fair hand of the Brexit poison chalice to go and hang herself with.
I have to say though she looked very sexy in that building site gear she had on yesterday....
Top Tory totty.
The only downside (from a Tory POV) of a general election is the risk of Corbyn being forced out.
Brexiteers don't do logic. That's a discipline for experts
It is amusing to see Eurofanatics who, for more than 40 years have argued in favour of the subverting of Parliamentary Sovereignty by the EEC/EU, suddenly discovering how vital it is to this country. Utter hypocrites.
Voluntarily joining a group of like minded countries to work together to common objectives is an exercise of sovereignty not a subversion of it.
Allowing a supra national body to push laws through Parliament whilst expressly forbidding Parliament from changing or rejecting them is clearly a subverting of its sovereignty. I gather you are one of the hypocrites.
It would explain the lower than expected black vote. Twats on here were calling me a hysterical fear mongering for pointing out this kind of thing months ago.
Would the government take it to the ECJ, even if they could?
I read that as they have no choice but to.
Probably would help if I knew what Article 267 was...
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states the following: "The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Ta, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the treaty.
Someone is questioning the application of Article 50 of the Treaty.
No they are not. They are questioning the UK constitution. This is not about interpretation of the treaty. It is about the extent of the Royal prerogative.
It is whether the EU consider that Article 50 has been triggered. The EU will look to EU law not the UK constitution.
It has previously been suggested that May only has to raise an eyebrow for the EU to say she has invoked article 50.
Not so. Article 50 expressly says that the decision to trigger will be based on the constitutional arrangements of the country concerned.
Labour is down to 22% with men, 15% with pensioners, and is only 1pt ahead of the Tories in London. The direction of voter churn is also interesting, but the LD and especially Ukip sub-samples are small so perhaps we shouldn't read too much into that?
The only reason that I can think of why the Government doesn't want an early election is just the same as it was before today's court judgement: because they want to get Brexit out of the way BEFORE they rout Jeremy Corbyn. If Brexit goes badly then it would be a huge stick in the hands of a half-way competent Labour leader, and they don't want to risk it.
All the same, if A50 does have to go to a vote in Parliament then it really ought to be shoved through as a confidence issue. The Government can't afford to let Remainers in the Commons force it into revealing its negotiating position to the EU in advance, and nor can it tolerate lengthy delaying tactics in the Lords. The wretched state of the Opposition implies that if Theresa May does find herself having to go the country, then at least she ought to be able to relieve herself of the burden of a tiny majority.
Funny given that we were taken into the EEC without any recourse to Parliament. Like I said. Europhile hypocrites.
That said I think it is right that Parliament make the decision even if I think that might mean we do not leave. But then I am not a hypocrite like the Remoaners.
Joining was a clear part of the Tory manifesto in 1970 though.
I am sure an A50 bill would pass with a substantial majority (with a lot of abstentions/absences), and it would tie a few Tories to the wheel for the rough seas ahead.
Mrs May has stumbled at the first hurdle.
Holding and abiding by the result of the referendum was also a clear part of the Tory manifesto. Neither changes the fact that we went into the EEC without a Parliamentary vote.
Nevada flipped into Trump's column on 538 and given the number of poll leads he has had there 2.8 on Betfair looks juicy. Could he have a Southwestern route (along with FL, NC, OH) by taking Colorado and New Mexico? He'd need to squeeze Johnson's votes.
New Hampshire polls: @WBUR Trump 40% Clinton 39% . Suffolk / @BostonGlobe Trump 42% Clinton 42% . Tight in NH
she should have put this state away by now. Tells me its a lot closer than te headline polls. RCP avreage down to 0.8% now. There will be no Clinton landslide, now.
Funny given that we were taken into the EEC without any recourse to Parliament. Like I said. Europhile hypocrites.
That said I think it is right that Parliament make the decision even if I think that might mean we do not leave. But then I am not a hypocrite like the Remoaners.
Joining was a clear part of the Tory manifesto in 1970 though.
I am sure an A50 bill would pass with a substantial majority (with a lot of abstentions/absences), and it would tie a few Tories to the wheel for the rough seas ahead.
Mrs May has stumbled at the first hurdle.
Holding and abiding by the result of the referendum was also a clear part of the Tory manifesto. Neither changes the fact that we went into the EEC without a Parliamentary vote.
What was the ECA 1972 about ?
That was the enabling act after the treaty had been signed bringing UK law into line with the EEC requirements.
Voters could be forgiven for looking at today and concluding the only way to get Brexit is to vote UKIP.
And that is dangerous for some major parties, methinks.
It's as dangerous for ardent Leavers to assume that people's GE vote will be motivated by their opinion of Brexit as it is for Remainers.
There is a precedent in Scotland.
I think we can reasonably assume that many Leavers will not be lending their vote to Remain MPs, especially in clear Leave voting constituencies.
Safe to assume then that the Remain voters of Richmond Park won't be voting for Goldsmith then? The EU never ranked highly as a GE voting priority, and I expect the same will apply at the next GE.
These posts fill me with nostalgia as they remind me of Scottish Labour in the months after the 2014 referendum, where the absolute spanking that was obviously about to unfold was blithely wished away by people who really didn't want to see it coming.
Goldsmith will lose some Tory remain votes in Richmond.
33m people cared enough about the EU (and it's consequences) to vote.
Brexiteers don't do logic. That's a discipline for experts
It is amusing to see Eurofanatics who, for more than 40 years have argued in favour of the subverting of Parliamentary Sovereignty by the EEC/EU, suddenly discovering how vital it is to this country. Utter hypocrites.
Voluntarily joining a group of like minded countries to work together to common objectives is an exercise of sovereignty not a subversion of it.
Allowing a supra national body to push laws through Parliament whilst expressly forbidding Parliament from changing or rejecting them is clearly a subverting of its sovereignty. I gather you are one of the hypocrites.
We'd only be giving up sovereignty if we signed up to a deal whereby the EU could make laws without our participation and we weren't allowed to leave. We joined up voluntarily and we are now leaving without any suggestion that we don't have the right to do so. If someone says to me that by leaving we can have more influence in the world or be more prosperous, I'd disagree but concede that they may be right and I might be wrong. When someone says that they want to leave the EU to regain sovereignty then at best they must be a romantic rather than a realist. But in your case I am not really sure you actually know what it means.
Late3st YouGov poll starting to show something for the Lib Dems, double figures almost overtaking UKIP. Perhaps the obvious changes in recent voting patterns are getting through the pollsters. Conservatives way, way ahead, but again seemingly out of cinque with the present actual voting realities.
New Hampshire polls: @WBUR Trump 40% Clinton 39% . Suffolk / @BostonGlobe Trump 42% Clinton 42% . Tight in NH
she should have put this state away by now. Tells me its a lot closer than te headline polls. RCP avreage down to 0.8% now. There will be no Clinton landslide, now.
it is only 2 polls around comey's letter though. I think she will still win it
I search in vain for the string of apologies from those that roundly laid into me when I suggested that the courts might throw a spanner in the works on Article 50. Perhaps they're just being carefully honed, awaiting my appearance on thread.
Nevada flipped into Trump's column on 538 and given the number of poll leads he has had there 2.8 on Betfair looks juicy. Could he have a Southwestern route (along with FL, NC, OH) by taking Colorado and New Mexico? He'd need to squeeze Johnson's votes.
I search in vain for the string of apologies from those that roundly laid into me when I suggested that the courts might throw a spanner in the works on Article 50. Perhaps they're just being carefully honed, awaiting my appearance on thread.
I remember disagreeing with you, so let me doff my hat to you sir.
Comments
That said I think it is right that Parliament make the decision even if I think that might mean we do not leave. But then I am not a hypocrite like the Remoaners.
"The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
https://twitter.com/thedarkweeally/status/794182410996830213
The mogster argument is that parliament abrogated its sovereignty by act of parliament for the voter to become sovereign just this one time.
It won't last.
I am sure an A50 bill would pass with a substantial majority (with a lot of abstentions/absences), and it would tie a few Tories to the wheel for the rough seas ahead.
Mrs May has stumbled at the first hurdle.
It does seem odd that she isn't in with a sniff here since he was Governor etc etc. But it was a long time ago.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/03/federal_judge_slams_north_carolina_voter_purge.html
Brexit seemed boring..Farage conceded...and then we had Sunderland.....
Trump will lose NM by at least 8 and CO and NV by 6. AZ TCTC.
https://twitter.com/ajjenkins/status/794181054496198656
https://youtu.be/Q6r8rqL0sSM
"OUTers blasting the judgment = implicitly supporting idea that UK Gvt shd be able to change UK law via prerogative = foolish & dangerous"
https://twitter.com/MichelleDiana/status/793917831574233088
May needs to whack out a Parliamentary vote...simple..and if she doesn't win, she calls an election. She's playing two rounds of poker...the Parliamentary vote, she's holding a full house...if she loses (unlikely) she calls an election and plays a Royal Flush. She cannot lose.
I for one would like an election...it would get rid of Corbyn (one hopes), and May needs a decent majority to give her a fair hand of the Brexit poison chalice to go and hang herself with.
I have to say though she looked very sexy in that building site gear she had on yesterday....
The mechanics are actually very simple - your strike price, i.e. the price at which you bought her was 295 ECVs and you therefore make a profit of 50p for every ECV she wins above that level - for example were she to win 315 ECVs you would win £10 (315 - 295 x 50p). If however she were to win only 275 ECVs you would lose £10 (295 - 275 x 50p).
Got it?
No it was parliament itself that offered up that prospect to the electorate by voting by a massive majority to abide by the voters' decision via an act in 2015. That is Jacob Rees-Mogg's point. Parliament was sovereign in abrogating its sovereignty to the electorate on this matter.
Now parliament wants to go back on that offer, because its the 'wrong' result,.
So the Clintons are not part of the elite afterall.
It's not impossible, but Wisconsin/Michigan are more likely. Not in a tight race, in other words - if Trump wins he's pretty comfortable nationally.
There are some (though not the government) that would dispute that, and this can only ultimately be adjudicated at the ECJ.
But the government would be mad to take anything to the ECJ and I see they have ruled it out tonight.
I guess I'm not the only one that is getting quite taken with Theresa...the name is sexy, and she doesn't come across as bonkers ideological, bunny boiler, pathological right winger female as we see with some (without mentioning names).
It has previously been suggested that May only has to raise an eyebrow for the EU to say she has invoked article 50.
http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements."
So the UK constitution would be what matters
''This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide''
Parliament voted away its right to have a say in this, just like it voted away its right to have a say in so much to the EU.
It never complains about the latter. But it complains about the former at the first instance.
Remember this from back in July?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/752644694140719104
When parliament votes to cede a decision to the EU, does it also vote to abide by that decision?
This is exactly the same as invoking Article 50 and then having Parliament vote on the terms.
https://youtu.be/k-n102EAYPA
Dan Hannan brilliantly tweeting the government circular informing the public of the status of the referendum.
''This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide''
Parliament voted away its right to have a say in this, just like it voted away its right to have a say in so much to the EU.
It never complains about the latter. But it complains about the former at the first instance.'
Spot on, suddenly a truck loads of hypocrites pretend to be interested in sovereignty.
The only downside (from a Tory POV) of a general election is the risk of Corbyn being forced out.
@WBUR
Trump 40%
Clinton 39%
.
Suffolk / @BostonGlobe
Trump 42%
Clinton 42%
.
Tight in NH
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kmy5c2fzq9/TimesResults_161101_VI_W.pdf
Labour is down to 22% with men, 15% with pensioners, and is only 1pt ahead of the Tories in London. The direction of voter churn is also interesting, but the LD and especially Ukip sub-samples are small so perhaps we shouldn't read too much into that?
The only reason that I can think of why the Government doesn't want an early election is just the same as it was before today's court judgement: because they want to get Brexit out of the way BEFORE they rout Jeremy Corbyn. If Brexit goes badly then it would be a huge stick in the hands of a half-way competent Labour leader, and they don't want to risk it.
All the same, if A50 does have to go to a vote in Parliament then it really ought to be shoved through as a confidence issue. The Government can't afford to let Remainers in the Commons force it into revealing its negotiating position to the EU in advance, and nor can it tolerate lengthy delaying tactics in the Lords. The wretched state of the Opposition implies that if Theresa May does find herself having to go the country, then at least she ought to be able to relieve herself of the burden of a tiny majority.
Florida early voting total: 4,867,113. https://t.co/3x25fHEiWn
Goldsmith will lose some Tory remain votes in Richmond.
33m people cared enough about the EU (and it's consequences) to vote.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/
Comey will get whatever he wants.
ha ha ha ha ha ha
More Melania Trump in PA: "We must treat each other with respect and kindness, even when we disagree."