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.
In fairness, you were very polite at the time (and in any case, I don't mind robust disagreement at all).
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.
No. You are confusing national sovereignty with Parliamentary sovereignty - and in fact you are wrong in both cases. But specifically in this instance of Parliamentary Sovereignty it is clear that it is subverted by the fact laws can be made over which it has no say. That another body might have a say on behalf of the British people is beside the point. As I say the Eurofanatics are hypocrites in this case.
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.
New Hampshire is the black sheep of New England, libertarian and the most Republican-leaning of the NE states. I was always a bit suspicious of polls showing Clinton well ahead there. I still think she'll win the state though.
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.
In fairness, you were very polite at the time (and in any case, I don't mind robust disagreement at all).
I was trying to be an armchair Lord Chief Justice... when will I learn that never works 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.
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.
No. You are confusing national sovereignty with Parliamentary sovereignty - and in fact you are wrong in both cases. But specifically in this instance of Parliamentary Sovereignty it is clear that it is subverted by the fact laws can be made over which it has no say. That another body might have a say on behalf of the British people is beside the point. As I say the Eurofanatics are hypocrites in this case.
In what way am I confusing national and parliamentary sovereignty?
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.
I'd like to see a consistent pattern of 10%+ scores for the Lib Dems before starting to believe that they are getting somewhere, but there may be something going on - although voter churn is also relevant here. As per my earlier remarks I'm reluctant to assign too much significance to one tiny sub-sample, but *IF* any increase in Lib Dem support is due to a net flow of voters from Labour, partially offset by a smaller net flow to the Tories, then it may not help them very much.
The bulk of the small handful of Lib Dem target marginals are Tory-held. If the yellows are losing, say, two existing voters to the Conservatives for every three they win from Labour, then their task in overhauling those Tory majorities becomes three times more difficult.
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.
No. You are confusing national sovereignty with Parliamentary sovereignty - and in fact you are wrong in both cases. But specifically in this instance of Parliamentary Sovereignty it is clear that it is subverted by the fact laws can be made over which it has no say. That another body might have a say on behalf of the British people is beside the point. As I say the Eurofanatics are hypocrites in this case.
In what way am I confusing national and parliamentary sovereignty?
The discussion was on Parliamentary sovereignty. It is possible to have national sovereignty without Parliamentary sovereignty if that is the constitutional settlement. A system that insisted on binding referenda which could not be overturned by Parliament would be such an arrangement. Not that I am advocating that but it would be an example.
In this case Parliamentary Sovereignty is clearly subverted by membership of the EU as laws can be passed without the possibility of amendment or rejection by Parliament. Under those circumstances to then invoke Parliamentary sovereignty as an argument for staying not invoking Article 50 is clearly hypocritical.
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).
I hope that you are just trolling the Mayites; or perhaps mistaking her for Teresa May her near namesake!
''In this case Parliamentary Sovereignty is clearly subverted by membership of the EU as laws can be passed without the possibility of amendment or rejection by Parliament''
Nick Cohen saying the courts protecting parliament is real sovereignty in action.
How often do the courts protect parliament against arbitrary decisions by the EU?
Our parliament has been happy to given power to the EU hand over fist to the EU for 40-years.. And yet they will not cede it once to the people who elect them.
except there are higher levels of hispanic turnout
No more than you would expect from the increase in hispanic population, indicating hispanics may still have a relatively poor turnout to other demographics.
Since 2008 registration has stayed about the same for GOP, Dems have dropped ~4% and NPA has risen ~3.7, mostly due to hispanics.
The early vote in 2008 was; 45.60% Dem 37.30% Rep 17.10% NPA/Other Currently in 2016 it stands; 39.78 Dem 40.30% Rep 20.19 NPA/Other
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.
I'd like to see a consistent pattern of 10%+ scores for the Lib Dems before starting to believe that they are getting somewhere, but there may be something going on - although voter churn is also relevant here. As per my earlier remarks I'm reluctant to assign too much significance to one tiny sub-sample, but *IF* any increase in Lib Dem support is due to a net flow of voters from Labour, partially offset by a smaller net flow to the Tories, then it may not help them very much.
The bulk of the small handful of Lib Dem target marginals are Tory-held. If the yellows are losing, say, two existing voters to the Conservatives for every three they win from Labour, then their task in overhauling those Tory majorities becomes three times more difficult.
Both ICMs poll and Yougovs poll last week ( which was strangely not published anywhere ) have Lib Dems gaining net a few voters from the Conservatives and rather more net from Labour . Real elections show that they are gaining rather more from the Conservatives .
FWIW, Nate Silver now has Nevada and Florida edging into the Trump column. His overall chance up to 35.3.%.
All you have to do is look at the relative strength of the colours on the 'snake'. Clinton's are much deeper (although less than they have been - thus she is much more likely to hold each one, whereas Trump's are paler, meaning he is much more likely to lose one.
Even if NH goes pale pink, Clinton is far more likely to win one of the pale red states to replace it than Trump is to hold all of them.
FWIW, Nate Silver now has Nevada and Florida edging into the Trump column. His overall chance up to 35.3.%.
All you have to do is look at the relative strength of the colours on the 'snake'. Clinton's are much deeper (although less than they have been - thus she is much more likely to hold each one, whereas Trump's are paler, meaning he is much more likely to lose one.
Even if NH goes pale pink, Clinton is far more likely to win one of the pale red states to replace it than Trump is to hold all of them.
To pu tit in context, OH is as safe for Trump as CO is for Clinton.
Perhaps those nut jobs..sorry..understandably angry vigilantes may get a shock if they take on the gay blade judge.
I see this nut job lives in the Netherlands and proclaims 'Freedom UK US' on their Twitter profile.
I see an idiot promoting something someone has posted to a Twitter account and trying to make some sort of 'point'. A grotesque early 21st century trend that our descendants will no doubt look upon with the same puzzlement and disgust as we have for throwing your night soil out into the street.
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
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.
Intriguing way to spell "sync" (abbrev. synchronisation)
It's not an obvious typo - but to go to the Medieval French (as in Cinque Ports)...there must be a reason?
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
So we're already out from March 2017 to 'within the next 12 months'. Even the most committed to Brexit seem to be resigned to a long and fractious process.
Let's wander down memory lane to the final week of the 2012 campaign .... This gem from the pollster Suffolk who gave up polling in 3 states because Romney had them very firmly in the bag. Said so loudly and often and then went on Fox News :
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Precisely - though several posters here think NV is Clinton's by 4-6%. All I'd say, is it's not evidenced in the polls.
Nevada has ha remarkable stability between party registration and votes in Nevada elections. There would have to be a spectacular Dem collapse and Republican surge well off trend to give the state to Trump.
As is the voter registration numbers say a 4% Hillary win to me.
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
Yup, a single line enabling act, vote down all amendments and get it through the Commons in one sitting. Dare the Lords to go against the will of the people. If they do then flood it with Tory peers or threaten them with elections.
Let's wander down memory lane to the final week of the 2012 campaign .... This gem from the pollster Suffolk who gave up polling in 3 states because Romney had them very firmly in the bag. Said so loudly and often and then went on Fox News :
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Luckily for us there is more than one pollster in the game
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.
I'd like to see a consistent pattern of 10%+ scores for the Lib Dems before starting to believe that they are getting somewhere, but there may be something going on - although voter churn is also relevant here. As per my earlier remarks I'm reluctant to assign too much significance to one tiny sub-sample, but *IF* any increase in Lib Dem support is due to a net flow of voters from Labour, partially offset by a smaller net flow to the Tories, then it may not help them very much.
The bulk of the small handful of Lib Dem target marginals are Tory-held. If the yellows are losing, say, two existing voters to the Conservatives for every three they win from Labour, then their task in overhauling those Tory majorities becomes three times more difficult.
Both ICMs poll and Yougovs poll last week ( which was strangely not published anywhere ) have Lib Dems gaining net a few voters from the Conservatives and rather more net from Labour . Real elections show that they are gaining rather more from the Conservatives .
The opinion polls almost did a really solid job of predicting the vote shares last year - the only failing was the critical -3% from Lab and +3% to Con, not the evaluation of the position of the other parties.
By-elections, especially isolated ones held mid-term, aren't really a substitute for a proper attempt to evaluate the national position.
Yup, a single line enabling act, vote down all amendments and get it through the Commons in one sitting. Dare the Lords to go against the will of the people. If they do then flood it with Tory peers or threaten them with elections.
We'd better get the trade agreement with Ecuador pre-negotiated in that case otherwise we might even fall below the level of a banana republic.
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
So we're already out from March 2017 to 'within the next 12 months'. Even the most committed to Brexit seem to be resigned to a long and fractious process.
That's a reaction to needing legislation where prior it wasn't necessary.
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
So we're already out from March 2017 to 'within the next 12 months'. Even the most committed to Brexit seem to be resigned to a long and fractious process.
That's a reaction to needing legislation where prior it wasn't necessary.
It was always necessary; it's just that previously some, including the government's legal team, were ignorant of the fact.
Let's wander down memory lane to the final week of the 2012 campaign .... This gem from the pollster Suffolk who gave up polling in 3 states because Romney had them very firmly in the bag. Said so loudly and often and then went on Fox News :
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
And Paddy Power have already paid out on Clinton - mistakes happen.
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.
I'd like to see a consistent pattern of 10%+ scores for the Lib Dems before starting to believe that they are getting somewhere, but there may be something going on - although voter churn is also relevant here. As per my earlier remarks I'm reluctant to assign too much significance to one tiny sub-sample, but *IF* any increase in Lib Dem support is due to a net flow of voters from Labour, partially offset by a smaller net flow to the Tories, then it may not help them very much.
The bulk of the small handful of Lib Dem target marginals are Tory-held. If the yellows are losing, say, two existing voters to the Conservatives for every three they win from Labour, then their task in overhauling those Tory majorities becomes three times more difficult.
Both ICMs poll and Yougovs poll last week ( which was strangely not published anywhere ) have Lib Dems gaining net a few voters from the Conservatives and rather more net from Labour . Real elections show that they are gaining rather more from the Conservatives .
Local by elections aren't Parliamentary elections. Opinion polls are the best guide to the latter.
Let's wander down memory lane to the final week of the 2012 campaign .... This gem from the pollster Suffolk who gave up polling in 3 states because Romney had them very firmly in the bag. Said so loudly and often and then went on Fox News :
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Let's wander down memory lane to the final week of the 2012 campaign .... This gem from the pollster Suffolk who gave up polling in 3 states because Romney had them very firmly in the bag. Said so loudly and often and then went on Fox News :
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Virginia??? Was he high at the time?
He drove from Blacksburg to Harrisonburg and didn't see a single Obama yard sign
Let's wander down memory lane to the final week of the 2012 campaign .... This gem from the pollster Suffolk who gave up polling in 3 states because Romney had them very firmly in the bag. Said so loudly and often and then went on Fox News :
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Virginia??? Was he high at the time?
He drove from Blacksburg to Harrisonburg and didn't see a single Obama yard sign
What demographic changes have made Virginia so safe? Hipster city types?
Let's wander down memory lane to the final week of the 2012 campaign .... This gem from the pollster Suffolk who gave up polling in 3 states because Romney had them very firmly in the bag. Said so loudly and often and then went on Fox News :
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Virginia??? Was he high at the time?
He drove from Blacksburg to Harrisonburg and didn't see a single Obama yard sign
What demographic changes have made Virginia so safe? Hipster city types?
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
Yes. I am very much in favour of playing things straight.
It may well be a long and arduous road even to get to the start of extricating ourselves from the EU, but it is, IMHO, best that everybody plays every card they can think of to stop it.
Even if they succeed, we have still made a huge advance in the matter. Those who wish to leave the EU now know that they account for about half of the electorate.
True, we will never be allowed another referendum, but other ways & means will crop up - other political parties.
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
Yes. I am very much in favour of playing things straight.
It may well be a long and arduous road even to get to the start of extricating ourselves from the EU, but it is, IMHO, best that everybody plays every card they can think of to stop it.
Even if they succeed, we have still made a huge advance in the matter. Those who wish to leave the EU now know that they account for about half of the electorate.
True, we will never be allowed another referendum, but other ways & means will crop up - other political parties.
Ah, so the court case was about trying to block Brexit!
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
So we're already out from March 2017 to 'within the next 12 months'. Even the most committed to Brexit seem to be resigned to a long and fractious process.
I picked that timeframe at random because someone said it earlier. Not relevant to the point I was making.
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.
Quite right! Saying Britain is no longer sovereign because of EU membership is like saying I've been deprived of my civil liberties because my golf club insists on my wearing a collared shirt.
Yup, a single line enabling act, vote down all amendments and get it through the Commons in one sitting. Dare the Lords to go against the will of the people. If they do then flood it with Tory peers or threaten them with elections.
We'd better get the trade agreement with Ecuador pre-negotiated in that case otherwise we might even fall below the level of a banana republic.
You mean dominated by American corporate interests?
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
Yes. I am very much in favour of playing things straight.
It may well be a long and arduous road even to get to the start of extricating ourselves from the EU, but it is, IMHO, best that everybody plays every card they can think of to stop it.
Even if they succeed, we have still made a huge advance in the matter. Those who wish to leave the EU now know that they account for about half of the electorate.
True, we will never be allowed another referendum, but other ways & means will crop up - other political parties.
Ah, so the court case was about trying to block Brexit!
Do you infer that from my comment? How on earth could I possibly know? Maybe I did assume that without realising it, but it hardly matters.
(Incidentally, I just noticed a bit on Yahoo about Ms Sturgeon joining in with the court case, but couldn't catch the link - anyone have it?)
''Quite right! Saying Britain is no longer sovereign because of EU membership is like saying I've been deprived of my civil liberties because my golf club insists on my wearing a collared shirt. ''
Given that 17.4m voted against membership, there are plenty who disagree with this absurd comparison.
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
Yup, a single line enabling act, vote down all amendments and get it through the Commons in one sitting. Dare the Lords to go against the will of the people. If they do then flood it with Tory peers or threaten them with elections.
I need to create a bot that when it sees "the will of the people" automatically replies with the fact that it was only 52% that voted Leave.
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.
My bold.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
Yes. I am very much in favour of playing things straight.
It may well be a long and arduous road even to get to the start of extricating ourselves from the EU, but it is, IMHO, best that everybody plays every card they can think of to stop it.
Even if they succeed, we have still made a huge advance in the matter. Those who wish to leave the EU now know that they account for about half of the electorate.
True, we will never be allowed another referendum, but other ways & means will crop up - other political parties.
Ah, so the court case was about trying to block Brexit!
Do you infer that from my comment? How on earth could I possibly know? Maybe I did assume that without realising it, but it hardly matters.
(Incidentally, I just noticed a bit on Yahoo about Ms Sturgeon joining in with the court case, but couldn't catch the link - anyone have it?)
You said that it is "best that everybody plays every card they can think of to stop it".
Comments
But http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/03/uk-government-prepares-trump-victory/
Trump has led or tied 3 of last 5 polls (since last week) in New Hampshire
If he edges out a win there, the electoral map could go 270-268. https://t.co/Eo9D02vWqP
If Trump flips New Hampshire, he flips the election.
https://t.co/SolpEs1BIx https://t.co/lmC8O3qOdk
Now NV is exactly 50-50.
These polls do look pretty good for Trump...
Wikileaks
Inside the US-China Paris climate accord negotiations. Podesta uses personal account to email with State Dept
https://t.co/7bjNZIf53D https://t.co/VdkDM2S6QX
Clinton might be thanking early voting if she wins, she'll have built up a decent lead in a few states before the FBI intervened last week.
Steve Koczela
New Hampshire polls:
@WBUR
Trump 40%
Clinton 39%
.
Suffolk / @BostonGlobe
Trump 42%
Clinton 42%
.
ARG poll
Trump 48%
Clinton 43%
Vote locker room talk and sexual assault!
The bulk of the small handful of Lib Dem target marginals are Tory-held. If the yellows are losing, say, two existing voters to the Conservatives for every three they win from Labour, then their task in overhauling those Tory majorities becomes three times more difficult.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/the-dallas-irs-office-thats-quietly-determining-the-fate-of-the-clinton-foundation-8864404
Won't be much left of it.
In this case Parliamentary Sovereignty is clearly subverted by membership of the EU as laws can be passed without the possibility of amendment or rejection by Parliament. Under those circumstances to then invoke Parliamentary sovereignty as an argument for staying not invoking Article 50 is clearly hypocritical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxHoL551uGs
https://lockerdome.com/eventhorizon/teresamay
If not, I know a good trick cyclist or two...
Nick Cohen saying the courts protecting parliament is real sovereignty in action.
How often do the courts protect parliament against arbitrary decisions by the EU?
Our parliament has been happy to given power to the EU hand over fist to the EU for 40-years.. And yet they will not cede it once to the people who elect them.
https://youtu.be/3n7nJzI3p5E
Since 2008 registration has stayed about the same for GOP, Dems have dropped ~4% and NPA has risen ~3.7, mostly due to hispanics.
The early vote in 2008 was; 45.60% Dem 37.30% Rep 17.10% NPA/Other
Currently in 2016 it stands; 39.78 Dem 40.30% Rep 20.19 NPA/Other
There is also a PPP in the field for a private client that they have tweeted as positive for Clinton
https://twitter.com/thomas_barks/status/794154726535348224
Perhaps those nut jobs..sorry..understandably angry vigilantes may get a shock if they take on the gay blade judge.
Michael Beckel
> $14 million has been spent on TV ads in state supreme court races so far this election https://t.co/tDEAEI5pWy via @CMAGAdFacts @Publici
Even if NH goes pale pink, Clinton is far more likely to win one of the pale red states to replace it than Trump is to hold all of them.
I don't see why the Government can't play it with a straight bat.
"The Government doesn't believe it is in the national interest to reveal our negotiation position in public prior to commencing discussions. Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss and vote on the conclusions of our negotiations in due course. For now we are simply asking Parliament to endorse the decision made by the voters in the referendum and authorise us to exercise Article 50 at a time that we see fit within the next 12 months"
Then rinse and repeat the same answer to pretty much every question & dare Labour to vote it down
It's not an obvious typo - but to go to the Medieval French (as in Cinque Ports)...there must be a reason?
“In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we’ve already painted those red. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
As is the voter registration numbers say a 4% Hillary win to me.
By-elections, especially isolated ones held mid-term, aren't really a substitute for a proper attempt to evaluate the national position.
Clinton 42 .. Trump 41
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3213243-225-Crossley-Survey-Results-Media.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us-ML1sUB0w
https://twitter.com/steveschale/status/794224225548730368?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
It may well be a long and arduous road even to get to the start of extricating ourselves from the EU, but it is, IMHO, best that everybody plays every card they can think of to stop it.
Even if they succeed, we have still made a huge advance in the matter. Those who wish to leave the EU now know that they account for about half of the electorate.
True, we will never be allowed another referendum, but other ways & means will crop up - other political parties.
Daily Caller
More People Believe In Bigfoot Than In Hillary’s Honesty https://t.co/ufUZwdf0S5 https://t.co/qLUihVzG14
Florida .. Colorado .. Nevada .. New Mexico .. Arizona .. Texas ...
https://twitter.com/LatinoDecisions/status/794184048436334592?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Who knew ..
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11915
http://order-order.com/2016/11/03/remain-voters-five-stages-grief-yougov/
...
(Incidentally, I just noticed a bit on Yahoo about Ms Sturgeon joining in with the court case, but couldn't catch the link - anyone have it?)
Given that 17.4m voted against membership, there are plenty who disagree with this absurd comparison.