We've got a by election in Sleaford & North Hykeham.
Well, I didn't expect that.
I must say: from what we've heard so far, good on him.
Given the way politics has been over the last two years, Trump must be a shoo-in. Not because of any bogus Brexit effect, but because we must start to expect the unexpected ...
Not as bad as when I re-tipped/backed James Purnell as next Labour leader one morning, and within an hour he announced his intention to stand down as an MP.
You do often appear a tad unlucky with threads you written the night before.
@PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: I understand Tory MP Stephen Philips is to resign today over govt approach to Brexit. 'Resign' meaning won't contest next election
I am confused as to what he is objecting to. He was one of those who campaigned for Brexit so unless he feels it is not proceeding quickly enough I can't see what he has to complain about.
Stephen Phillips, who voted to leave in the referendum, said the government appeared intent on negotiating “without any regard to the House of Commons” in a way that was “fundamentally undemocratic, unconstitutional and cuts across the rights and privileges of the legislature”.
Phillips said: “I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government that apparently wishes to ignore the views of the house on the most important issue facing the nation.”
You cannot argue with that logic...or maybe you can, but I cannot see it....
I agree entirely with the logic of his argument but not the decision which I think is precipitous. If May now decides that she will put Article 50 to Parliament for a vote then he will look a bit daft.
@PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: I understand Tory MP Stephen Philips is to resign today over govt approach to Brexit. 'Resign' meaning won't contest next election
I am confused as to what he is objecting to. He was one of those who campaigned for Brexit so unless he feels it is not proceeding quickly enough I can't see what he has to complain about.
Stephen Phillips, who voted to leave in the referendum, said the government appeared intent on negotiating “without any regard to the House of Commons” in a way that was “fundamentally undemocratic, unconstitutional and cuts across the rights and privileges of the legislature”.
Phillips said: “I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government that apparently wishes to ignore the views of the house on the most important issue facing the nation.”
You cannot argue with that logic...or maybe you can, but I cannot see it....
The unsquareable circle is that most MPs are at odds with the referendum victors on this.
I happen to think that they will subordinate their own feelings, at least in this instance, to vote through the A50 bill.
There is a complicated spreadsheet to be created showing the relationship between party/remain//leave constituencies showing the potential outcome at a GE for, say, a Remain Cons MP trying to vote down Brexit in a Remain constituency (cf Ken Clarke where we'll never know).
We've got a by election in Sleaford & North Hykeham.
General Election 2015: Sleaford and North Hykeham Conservative Stephen Phillips 34,805 56.2 +4.6 Labour Jason Pandya-Wood 10,690 17.3 +0.4 UKIP Steven Hopkins 9,716 15.7 +12.1 Liberal Democrat Matthew Holden 3,500 5.7 -12.5 Lincolnshire Independents Marianne Overton 3,233 5.2 -1.2 Majority 24,115 38.9
I've no problems with the Judges making legal points. My argument is that the case was brought in an effort to stop any Brexit. As Blair announced, the Elite see this as a prolonged guerrilla war.
Two ways ...
(1) Delay and amend to death any bill, then announce it's still not good enough for us to vote Yes. Suggest more discussions. Rewind again. Hope the public gradually calm down and move onto other things. Let the indecision do its work on the economy, and there's bound to be International crises to worry about eventually.
Bring back the project Fear. Give the EU time to make a few tiny concessions, big them up and allow the suggestion to grow that the public have changed their mind. At worst ... a new referendum.
(2) If worst comes to worst, vote Yes, but only after neutralising any bargaining position. Accept free movement, carry on paying, and have associate membership with a small penalty to retain free market. The EU will throw in a bonus or two on specific industries. What's the problem, leavers? We've left. In name. at least.
Mr. K, the author is an exciting (and handsome) young fellow who's also got a short story in a fantasy anthology due out in January, featuring other stories by writers such as the award-winning Adrian Tchaikovsky.
So is Stephen Phillips going to restand? It doesn't look like it from his statement. And if not, who is he going to support in the by-election, given that he seems to be unable to support the government any more in Parliament?
So is Stephen Phillips going to restand? It doesn't look like it from his statement. And if not, who is he going to support in the by-election, given that he seems to be unable to support the government any more in Parliament?
The referendum was drafted so that the result would not be legally binding. The government conceded that in court, correctly the judges held (paragraph 105 of the judgment). So its effects can only be political not legal.
Once that is appreciated, the question is not whether the referendum decided the matter legally but who legally has the power to start the process of leaving the EU. The government was arguing in effect that it could do so without ever getting Parliament's approval or even consulting it.
This question is more important than Brexit. The executive needs to be subject to proper controls. In a sane world newspapers would applaud a court ruling upholding that.
As for a general election, Theresa May should have called one straight away. The courts may be doing her a favour, forcing her to do what in any case was in her own best interests. Though running on "who governs Britain?" is a risky strategy. It might well be that the electorate are interested in other questions as well, as Ted Heath found out.
Absolutely correct! The final two sentences are spot on. I would simply add that there is no requirement for Corbyn to bow to any plans May have for an election - particularly when his party is so far adrift in the polls.
Mr. Charles, depends whether you consider the advisory status to be a feature or a bug.
The whole exercise was intended as an elaborate piece of theatre in which the Tory party would have its cathartic date with the people and then we'd all come together having endorsed the status quo and marginalised UKIP. That anyone ever thought an in-out referendum on EU membership was the way to do this was a grotesque failure of judgement.
Cameron was crap.
It's funny how some seem to think that Theresa May (on whom the jury is still out) should be replaced by George Osborne, the 'mastermind' behind the Cameron government. The government that gave us a referendum on something they didn't want to change, failed in the campaign and saw a massive antiestablishment revolt after they'd been in power 6 years. You wonder sometimes if Osborne 'has' something on many of the country's leading opinion formers. To them he is clearly made of teflon.
The referendum was drafted so that the result would not be legally binding. The government conceded that in court, correctly the judges held (paragraph 105 of the judgment). So its effects can only be political not legal.
Once that is appreciated, the question is not whether the referendum decided the matter legally but who legally has the power to start the process of leaving the EU. The government was arguing in effect that it could do so without ever getting Parliament's approval or even consulting it.
This question is more important than Brexit. The executive needs to be subject to proper controls. In a sane world newspapers would applaud a court ruling upholding that.
As for a general election, Theresa May should have called one straight away. The courts may be doing her a favour, forcing her to do what in any case was in her own best interests. Though running on "who governs Britain?" is a risky strategy. It might well be that the electorate are interested in other questions as well, as Ted Heath found out.
Absolutely correct! The final two sentences are spot on. I would simply add that there is no requirement for Corbyn to bow to any plans May have for an election - particularly when his party is so far adrift in the polls.
You keep saying this. But the no confidence route around the FTPA will not make Corbyn Prime Minister, because no alternative government can be formed. And given this, Labour might as well vote for the GE under the FTPA.
Any chance that Phillips will not be the Tory candidate in Sleaford? Constituency chairmen may take a view that being 'sound' on Brexit is a requirement.
In the Richmond Park by-election, Zac Goldsmith will be able top claim the moral high ground by pointing out that he will be upholding the will of the people by voting for Article 50 even though his constituents mostly voted Remain.
Puts the Lib Dem candidate in the awkward position of choosing democracy or being against triggering Article 50.
When this Sleaford thing is out of the way, UKIP can keep up the pressure by resigning their European Parliament seats one a month to show just how popular Brexit is.
"We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms."
True.
However, as you know, the intention of this legal challenge is to subvert the will of the people. That is the problem.
If we decided to have a Referendum on restoring the death penalty, I would vote against. But it might pass. I would accept the decision.
I would not argue, for instance that the supporters had lied by saying that the conviction rate for murder had risen as a result of abolition. Or by saying that it was a result of potential murders thinking they could get away with it. I might suggest it was more likely due to juries being more likely to convict because the consequences of error were less serious, but that's interpretation.
Statistics don't lie, but the interpretation of statistics can be wrong. As Kipling observed ... 'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.'
Remainers who moan about 'lies', that is the interpretation of facts they don't agree with, make fools of themselves.
But to dishonestly claim that it's all about openness and transparency is clearly absurd.
Mr Meeks has the candour to say why he's against the result. I give him credit for that. I wish others were so honest.
No, I don't know that the purpose of the challenge was to subvert the will of the people. The purpose of the challenge was to prevent the government from triggering Article 50 without the approval of Parliament. Parliament will approve the triggering of Article 50, but if it doesn't the government will resign, an election will be called and the governing party will win an increased majority. There is no route from here for the UK to stay in the EU without the express and direct permission of the British people.
If the Government resigns it ceases to be in office. A new Government and PM would have to be appointed before any election is called.
When this Sleaford thing is out of the way, UKIP can keep up the pressure by resigning their European Parliament seats one a month to show just how popular Brexit is.
There are no by-elections for MEP seats. The next party member in line on the list gets the job.
When this Sleaford thing is out of the way, UKIP can keep up the pressure by resigning their European Parliament seats one a month to show just how popular Brexit is.
There are no by-elections for MEP seats. The next party member in line on the list gets the job.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
Because it would establish the principle that the people are inferior to Parliament.
Parliament voted for the referendum to be advisory. Hence the need for an Article 50 Act which may be voted down by the House of Lords.
Cameron should have made the referendum result definitive. Some civil servant probably ensured it was advisory as a fall back just in case the vote was for Leave.
Which just leads to a GE and a massive Con majority with a manifesto commitment on leaving the EU which the Lords won't be able to oppose.
How does it lead to a GE? That needs the consent of either both houses or a supermajority of the Commons. And for May to break her promise.
Material change in the circumstances. Repeal the FTPA or declare that the house has no confidence.
Yes, the FTPA is no problem for a govt with a majority
Comments
I think if the LD's manage to claim second spot in this seat....that could potentially be a very damaging blow to Jezza the Duffer.....
I must say: from what we've heard so far, good on him.
Given the way politics has been over the last two years, Trump must be a shoo-in. Not because of any bogus Brexit effect, but because we must start to expect the unexpected ...
I happen to think that they will subordinate their own feelings, at least in this instance, to vote through the A50 bill.
There is a complicated spreadsheet to be created showing the relationship between party/remain//leave constituencies showing the potential outcome at a GE for, say, a Remain Cons MP trying to vote down Brexit in a Remain constituency (cf Ken Clarke where we'll never know).
Two ways ...
(1) Delay and amend to death any bill, then announce it's still not good enough for us to vote Yes. Suggest more discussions. Rewind again. Hope the public gradually calm down and move onto other things. Let the indecision do its work on the economy, and there's bound to be International crises to worry about eventually.
Bring back the project Fear. Give the EU time to make a few tiny concessions, big them up and allow the suggestion to grow that the public have changed their mind. At worst ... a new referendum.
(2) If worst comes to worst, vote Yes, but only after neutralising any bargaining position. Accept free movement, carry on paying, and have associate membership with a small penalty to retain free market. The EU will throw in a bonus or two on specific industries. What's the problem, leavers? We've left. In name. at least.
So, he must be good.
a) Not being amended to death in the Commons
b) The Lords
I saw quite a few Lincolnshire flags on my last visit a week or so ago. I can't say I'd ever noticed any before.
NEW THREAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
Steve Schale
@steveschale
Turns out almost 50k of GOP EV in 16 were Dem EV in 12. I'd be surprised if more than 1-2k of them had voted Dem since 1964 or 76. 2/2
Puts the Lib Dem candidate in the awkward position of choosing democracy or being against triggering Article 50.