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".
The ace in that pack was surely putting Liam Fox in charge of post-Brexit trade policy.
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.
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
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.
And we can create a bot to point out that that is how the system works and if you can't be bothered to vote you don't get to complain about the result.
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.
Ah, one of the more fatuous and stupid comments we have had on here in a very long time. Why am I not surprised it came from you.
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.
There is a case to be made that referendums on such significant issues should require more than 50% +1 vote in order to be approved. Indeed, that petition which was started by a Leaver but coopted by remainers after the vote made such a case. But there is no rule right now, so it doesn't really matter if it was 52 or 75.
Must say reading the judgement the government's case did look weak, so it will be interesting to see what the appeal arguments and judgements hinge on.
I did enjoy it stated the fact the point raised was justiciable, for the courts to decide, was not contested by either side in the case. Despite the wishes of the claimants as to what might happen if parliament gets to vote, and despite the government for obvious reasons putting the case that was not necessary, neither side disputed that it was a proper question for the court, despite the more angry getting all huffy about judicial interference. As it said: We are not in any way concerned with the use that may be made of the Crown's prerogative power, if such a power can as a matter of law be used in respect of Article 50, or what will follow if the Crown's prerogative powers cannot be so used.
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".
Yes, I think it is best. If the blocking efforts of those who'd prefer to remain fail, they will at least know they did everything they could to stop us leaving. If those efforts succeed, well, those who'd prefer to leave will carry on the struggle.
Edward Heath lied to get us to vote in favour of joining the Common Market. His lies need to be washed out of the body politic. Playing things straight now is the only way to do 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.
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.
And we can create a bot to point out that that is how the system works and if you can't be bothered to vote you don't get to complain about the result.
There wasn`t a real question, Mr Tyndall. Nobody knew exactly what would happen next, whichever side won the referendum. This is the problem now facing the country, and more especially the Tory Party. Mrs May is onto a loser. No wonder she wants to cut and run.
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 agree. Cutting and pasting from a Facebook comment I made (I do try to keep politics off there...)
I agree with the court's logic. But you can't negotiate via a parliamentary process, so I imagine the government will be seeking as broad (and therefore short) an Act as possible.
The challenge will come with the amendments - with both Houses having strong pro-Remain majorities there will be attempts to circumscribe our position which will, intentionally or otherwise, serve to frustrate the Government's ability to enact the referendum result, and the spirit of that result.
So these are potentially very dangerous times for Parliament and indeed specific MPs (and the Lords more generally). The result itself was partly a rejection of Parliament's authority and composition and it needs to be very careful not to exacerbate that.
A 2017 election is looking increasingly necessary, and from a betting perspective it should be odds-on.
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.
Like De Valera, you only have to look into your heart to discern the will of the people. You'll be telling us that the Referendum result was actually a vote for more Europe.
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.
And we can create a bot to point out that that is how the system works and if you can't be bothered to vote you don't get to complain about the result.
There wasn`t a real question, Mr Tyndall. Nobody knew exactly what would happen next, whichever side won the referendum. This is the problem now facing the country, and more especially the Tory Party. Mrs May is onto a loser. No wonder she wants to cut and run.
And yet more people voted for Brexit than have voted for the winning party in any General Election in British history.
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.
And we can create a bot to point out that that is how the system works and if you can't be bothered to vote you don't get to complain about the result.
There wasn`t a real question, Mr Tyndall. Nobody knew exactly what would happen next, whichever side won the referendum. This is the problem now facing the country, and more especially the Tory Party. Mrs May is onto a loser. No wonder she wants to cut and run.
And yet more people voted for Brexit than have voted for the winning party in any General Election in British history.
And that was after being presented with a range of doomsday scenarios that included world war three among others (including no single market access).
The notion that is being peddled that people were not aware of the potential consequences is one of the most preposterous aspects of the post-vote whinge.
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.
But - Parliament did vote in 1972. Heath made it a free vote (in order to make it easier for Labour In MPs to vote In, reportedly)
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.
But - Parliament did vote in 1972. Heath made it a free vote (in order to make it easier for Labour In MPs to vote In, reportedly)
Only after he had actually signed the treaty. Much like Article 50.
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.
But - Parliament did vote in 1972. Heath made it a free vote (in order to make it easier for Labour In MPs to vote In, reportedly)
Only after he had actually signed the treaty. Much like Article 50.
They'd already voted to endorse signing in October 1971.
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.
And we can create a bot to point out that that is how the system works and if you can't be bothered to vote you don't get to complain about the result.
There wasn`t a real question, Mr Tyndall. Nobody knew exactly what would happen next, whichever side won the referendum. This is the problem now facing the country, and more especially the Tory Party. Mrs May is onto a loser. No wonder she wants to cut and run.
And yet more people voted for Brexit than have voted for the winning party in any General Election in British history.
And more people voted against Brexit than for any winning party. Though both fell short of the viewing figures for the episode of Eastenders when Den told Angie he wanted a divorce.
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.
And we can create a bot to point out that that is how the system works and if you can't be bothered to vote you don't get to complain about the result.
There wasn`t a real question, Mr Tyndall. Nobody knew exactly what would happen next, whichever side won the referendum. This is the problem now facing the country, and more especially the Tory Party. Mrs May is onto a loser. No wonder she wants to cut and run.
And yet more people voted for Brexit than have voted for the winning party in any General Election in British history.
And more people voted against Brexit than for any winning party. Though both fell short of the viewing figures for the episode of Eastenders when Den told Angie he wanted a divorce.
More people voted against REMAIN than voted against LEAVE!
On the part of the newspaper, needless to say, not the judges.
And that first para is 100% wrong. It's not embittered Remainers thwarting the will of the British people, it's having Parliament not the government vote on the terms of Brexit. We're still leaving you tw*ts. Even for the Daily Mail, this is pretty vile propaganda. In many countries of the world, the headline with identifiable pictures is sinister and incendiary.
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.
And we can create a bot to point out that that is how the system works and if you can't be bothered to vote you don't get to complain about the result.
There wasn`t a real question, Mr Tyndall. Nobody knew exactly what would happen next, whichever side won the referendum. This is the problem now facing the country, and more especially the Tory Party. Mrs May is onto a loser. No wonder she wants to cut and run.
And yet more people voted for Brexit than have voted for the winning party in any General Election in British history.
And more people voted against Brexit than for any winning party. Though both fell short of the viewing figures for the episode of Eastenders when Den told Angie he wanted a divorce.
More people voted against REMAIN than voted against LEAVE!
Thanks for reminding me. I know it was in the papers and everything, but it is easy to let these things slip out of your mind.
Comments
A far lower percentage voted for the 2005 labour government, I guess you must have been incandescent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6022.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/02/early_voting_a_poor_predictor_of_final_results.html
In 08 and 12 I was able to provide a far more in depth service and analysis. Not so this time .... More a small bottom than a full ARSE.
Clinton 44 .. Trump 38
http://magellanstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Magellan-Strategies-Colorado-US-President-Survey-Summary-110316.pdf
Must say reading the judgement the government's case did look weak, so it will be interesting to see what the appeal arguments and judgements hinge on.
I did enjoy it stated the fact the point raised was justiciable, for the courts to decide, was not contested by either side in the case. Despite the wishes of the claimants as to what might happen if parliament gets to vote, and despite the government for obvious reasons putting the case that was not necessary, neither side disputed that it was a proper question for the court, despite the more angry getting all huffy about judicial interference. As it said: We are not in any way concerned with the use that may be made of the Crown's prerogative power, if such a power can as a matter of law be used in respect of Article 50, or what will follow if the Crown's prerogative powers cannot be so used.
Edward Heath lied to get us to vote in favour of joining the Common Market. His lies need to be washed out of the body politic. Playing things straight now is the only way to do it.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cubs-have-a-smaller-chance-of-winning-than-trump-does/
Today: "World Series: Chicago Cubs beat Cleveland Indians 8-7 in Game Seven to clinch comeback title win"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/the-curse-ends-as-cubs-win-first-world-series-in-108-years/7992904
LOL !!
I agree with the court's logic. But you can't negotiate via a parliamentary process, so I imagine the government will be seeking as broad (and therefore short) an Act as possible.
The challenge will come with the amendments - with both Houses having strong pro-Remain majorities there will be attempts to circumscribe our position which will, intentionally or otherwise, serve to frustrate the Government's ability to enact the referendum result, and the spirit of that result.
So these are potentially very dangerous times for Parliament and indeed specific MPs (and the Lords more generally). The result itself was partly a rejection of Parliament's authority and composition and it needs to be very careful not to exacerbate that.
A 2017 election is looking increasingly necessary, and from a betting perspective it should be odds-on.
99% on the other one.
The notion that is being peddled that people were not aware of the potential consequences is one of the most preposterous aspects of the post-vote whinge.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/
Heath made it a free vote (in order to make it easier for Labour In MPs to vote In, reportedly)
Insanity.
On the part of the newspaper, needless to say, not the judges.