That's bold and I think it might pay off. She's the sort of Kipper that would go down well in a moderate Tory seat (if she avoids some of her rhetoric of the past few days.)
justin124 said: » show previous quotes ' 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.'
Tissue Price said: '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. '
I don't think the constitutional position is anything like as clear as you imply.I note that David Herdson referred to the possibility of Corbyn becoming PM in his article today - and other commentators have expressed a similar view. At the very least , forcing May to table a No Confidence Vote would delay any election by 2/3 weeks.
There is no provision under our Constitution for HM appointing a PM who cannot command the House. We shall see...
If the Government 'resigns' HM has to appoint another PM - as did Edward VII in December 1905 when he appointed Campbell-Bannerman to succeed Balfour.
This is the closest parallel but I submit that we (the UK collectively) are not going to appoint a Prime Minister with zero power or authority. The state would look ridiculous at home & abroad. Some mechanism will be found.
This just seems a bit weird. More to this than meets the eye?
He did threaten to resign once before, if the referendum didn't happen.
The shame of the people who conspired to make this situation inevitable is something they'll all have to live with.
Indeed.
Whilst I, like almost everyone, recognise that the die is now cast, there is little doubt in my mind that the UK will come in time to regret its decision to step away from the EU and that the bunch of cynical opportunists and extremists that have led us to this pass surely won't be around when the accountability for the consequences is going begging.
You want the UK to become part of a U.S.E.?
I would rather my country were playing its part in shaping the institutions of the future than standing aside and opting out.
The logical conclusion to your post is to back Brexit.
We need to embrace the whole globe, not one tiny fraction of it.
This nonsense about embracing the whole globe is one of the most egregious dishonesties of the Brexit campaign.
The most successful exporter on the planet is Germany, right at the heart of the EU.
And many of the Brexit campaigners and many of their supporters cannot bring themselves to embrace the nearest parts of the globe, let alone the parts further away.
There is nothing in leaving the EU that will make us any more able to 'embrace the world' than we were so able by playing our role as part of the European family of nations.
Except the fact we will be able to negotiate our own trade deals that benefit us specifically rather than being scuppered by other countries.
The global citizen thing throws up another question:
Dump trade deal with major developed bloc and all their associated deals.
Make deals increasingly with emerging economies, BRIC, MINT &c.
The risk is of UK business being forced to deal increasingly with 8 countries and more who are, yes, growing, but have problems of transparency and accountability almost across the board, to the exclusion of stable developed economies where the barriers have gone up.
What does this then do to the transparency, accountability and level of legal compliance of UK companies?
A challenge regardless of our positioning relative to the EU. Trade with the rest of the EU is declining as a percentage of the whole, and has been for a long time.
Not quite true: The number of people 'unemployed' fell by 150000 - but the number of people who hold jobs fell by 185,000 and the number of people who are not in the labour force increased by 425,000.
America now has a notable problem with workless citizens. Another feature of its relative decline.
The first thing that the Government should do if and when we are formally out of the Customs Union is to declare unilateral free trade in food, if nothing else.
Ain't gonna happen, much as Monsanto would be delighted if the UK market was opened up to GM foods.
That's bold and I think it might pay off. She's the sort of Kipper that would go down well in a moderate Tory seat (if she avoids some of her rhetoric of the past few days.)
The global citizen thing throws up another question:
Dump trade deal with major developed bloc and all their associated deals.
Make deals increasingly with emerging economies, BRIC, MINT &c.
The risk is of UK business being forced to deal increasingly with 8 countries and more who are, yes, growing, but have problems of transparency and accountability almost across the board, to the exclusion of stable developed economies where the barriers have gone up.
What does this then do to the transparency, accountability and level of legal compliance of UK companies?
Why would we put up trade barriers with developed nations? No one has suggested we exclude them. In fact the first major trade deal will probably be with Australia.
Mainly loss of EU trade deals with e.g. Canada, though I note the recent discussions about grandfathering. And dealing on our own with a few WASP Commonwealth nations is hardly the stuff of global citizenship I imagined. To me the clear implication from Brexiteers was that a far greater proportion of our trade would be done with developing nations, and that some degree of turning away from the "dead-on-its-feet" EU was part of that.
Not quite true: The number of people 'unemployed' fell by 150000 - but the number of people who hold jobs fell by 185,000 and the number of people who are not in the labour force increased by 425,000.
America now has a notable problem with workless citizens. Another feature of its relative decline.
It's a huge difference. It's not unknown in the UK, between the 1992 recession and the 2008 recession, a significant proportion of the labour force was also considered economically inactive in circumstances where that was challengeable.
The first thing that the Government should do if and when we are formally out of the Customs Union is to declare unilateral free trade in food, if nothing else.
Ain't gonna happen, much as Monsanto would be delighted if the UK market was opened up to GM foods.
Germany's Bayer, you mean!
Tariff elimination for agricultural goods isn't the same as removal of all standards, though.
Banff and District Result of ward at last election (2012) Scottish National Party 803, 1,037 (56%) Conservatives 768 (23%) Liberal Democrats 369 (11%) Scottish Christian Party 342 (10%) Candidates duly nominated: Alistair Mason (Lib Dem), Glen Reynolds (SNP), Iain Taylor (Con)
Inverurie and District Result of ward at last election (2012) Scottish National Party 688, 612 (37%) Conservatives 608 (18%) Liberal Democrats 606 (17%) Labour 463 (13%) Independents 211, 196 (12%) Green Party 113 (3%)
And first-count results this time...
Result of Banff and District Ward byelection Iain Taylor (Con) 1,170 (44%) Glen David Reynolds (SNP) 962 (36%) Alistair Mason (SLD) 526 (20%)
Result of Inverurie and District ward Colin Clark (Con) 1,302 (39%) Neil Baillie (SNP) 1,164 (35%) Alison Auld (SLD) 755 (22%) Sarah Falvell (Lab) 139 (4%)
Two different stories, really. In Inverurie the Cons swept up the non-SNP vote; in Banff the SNP vote dropped by 20%.
When the fishermen of Banff/Portsoy find out that fishing rights will be not be returned, but sacrificed to get a better post-Brexit deal for the City of London and Nissan it will be a different story...
The global citizen thing throws up another question:
Dump trade deal with major developed bloc and all their associated deals.
Make deals increasingly with emerging economies, BRIC, MINT &c.
The risk is of UK business being forced to deal increasingly with 8 countries and more who are, yes, growing, but have problems of transparency and accountability almost across the board, to the exclusion of stable developed economies where the barriers have gone up.
What does this then do to the transparency, accountability and level of legal compliance of UK companies?
Why would we put up trade barriers with developed nations? No one has suggested we exclude them. In fact the first major trade deal will probably be with Australia.
Mainly loss of EU trade deals with e.g. Canada, though I note the recent discussions about grandfathering. And dealing on our own with a few WASP Commonwealth nations is hardly the stuff of global citizenship I imagined. To me the clear implication from Brexiteers was that a far greater proportion of our trade would be done with developing nations, and that some degree of turning away from the "dead-on-its-feet" EU was part of that.
Why turn away from anyone? The argument is, and has always been, open up to everyone. That you have chosen to interpret it as closing ourselves off is your choice, not mine.
If Russia has built up as powerful an espionage and propaganda presence in the US as Kurt Eichenwald says in today's piece in Newsweek, where was the FBI? Eichenwald doesn't even mention the domestic security agency that is tasked with protecting the US against such activities by foreign powers. That agency appears to be helping Trump. Game over?
The FBI once appointed a Soviet spy to discover who the Soviet spy was in the FBI.
The global citizen thing throws up another question:
Dump trade deal with major developed bloc and all their associated deals.
Make deals increasingly with emerging economies, BRIC, MINT &c.
The risk is of UK business being forced to deal increasingly with 8 countries and more who are, yes, growing, but have problems of transparency and accountability almost across the board, to the exclusion of stable developed economies where the barriers have gone up.
What does this then do to the transparency, accountability and level of legal compliance of UK companies?
Why would we put up trade barriers with developed nations? No one has suggested we exclude them. In fact the first major trade deal will probably be with Australia.
Mainly loss of EU trade deals with e.g. Canada, though I note the recent discussions about grandfathering. And dealing on our own with a few WASP Commonwealth nations is hardly the stuff of global citizenship I imagined. To me the clear implication from Brexiteers was that a far greater proportion of our trade would be done with developing nations, and that some degree of turning away from the "dead-on-its-feet" EU was part of that.
Why turn away from anyone? The argument is, and has always been, open up to everyone. That you have chosen to interpret it as closing ourselves off is your choice, not mine.
To paraphrase "Brexit does not mean walking away from any trade deal". I sort of know what you are driving at, but still!
If Russia has built up as powerful an espionage and propaganda presence in the US as Kurt Eichenwald says in today's piece in Newsweek, where was the FBI? Eichenwald doesn't even mention the domestic security agency that is tasked with protecting the US against such activities by foreign powers. That agency appears to be helping Trump. Game over?
The FBI once appointed a Soviet spy to discover who the Soviet spy was in the FBI.
justin124 said: » show previous quotes ' 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.'
Tissue Price said: '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. '
I don't think the constitutional position is anything like as clear as you imply.I note that David Herdson referred to the possibility of Corbyn becoming PM in his article today - and other commentators have expressed a similar view. At the very least , forcing May to table a No Confidence Vote would delay any election by 2/3 weeks.
There is no provision under our Constitution for HM appointing a PM who cannot command the House. We shall see...
That's not true (and not logical). A PM appoints someone who she believes is capable of commanding the confidence of the House. As the FTPA provisions have yet to be used, it's something of an unknown as to how precisely they'd work.
However, the Act requires that if a government is No Confidenced, an election follows unless there's a vote of confidence in the government within two weeks. That clearly implies a new government in place (or that the same one remains and that parliament's view changes) before the vote. It may be that Corbyn declined to form a government, having nothing like the support necessary. It may be that HMQ doesn't invite him to form a government unless he has shown to her satisfaction that he could gain the confidence of the House. But all this is to be determined at the time and cannot be assumed with any confidence.
Banff and District Result of ward at last election (2012) Scottish National Party 803, 1,037 (56%) Conservatives 768 (23%) Liberal Democrats 369 (11%) Scottish Christian Party 342 (10%) Candidates duly nominated: Alistair Mason (Lib Dem), Glen Reynolds (SNP), Iain Taylor (Con)
Inverurie and District Result of ward at last election (2012) Scottish National Party 688, 612 (37%) Conservatives 608 (18%) Liberal Democrats 606 (17%) Labour 463 (13%) Independents 211, 196 (12%) Green Party 113 (3%)
And first-count results this time...
Result of Banff and District Ward byelection Iain Taylor (Con) 1,170 (44%) Glen David Reynolds (SNP) 962 (36%) Alistair Mason (SLD) 526 (20%)
Result of Inverurie and District ward Colin Clark (Con) 1,302 (39%) Neil Baillie (SNP) 1,164 (35%) Alison Auld (SLD) 755 (22%) Sarah Falvell (Lab) 139 (4%)
Two different stories, really. In Inverurie the Cons swept up the non-SNP vote; in Banff the SNP vote dropped by 20%.
When the fishermen of Banff/Portsoy find out that fishing rights will be not be returned, but sacrificed to get a better post-Brexit deal for the City of London and Nissan it will be a different story...
That seems highly unlikely. Even if the country ended up with the Norway option (which I don't think will happen) then this would still entail the end of UK participation in CAP and CFP.
The fishermen, at least, seem destined to get what they want, unless Brexit is somehow thwarted altogether.
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
This just seems a bit weird. More to this than meets the eye?
Indeed.
Boris - as the principal culprit - knows this; it doesn't matter whether his 'Titanic' reference was conscious or sub-conscious, it shows that he knows, deep down, how this will probably end.
I would rather my country were playing its part in shaping the institutions of the future than standing aside and opting out.
We live in a world where almost nowhere on the planet is within not much more than a day's travel and where information can be transmitted by a variety of means instantaneously. With an economy dominated by supra-national corporations. Yet we have politicians and many voters who behave as if it still took a month on board ship to reach Australia.
The logical conclusion to your post is to back Brexit.
We need to embrace the whole globe, not one tiny fraction of it.
This nonsense about embracing the whole globe is one of the most egregious dishonesties of the Brexit campaign.
The most successful exporter on the planet is Germany, right at the heart of the EU.
And many of the Brexit campaigners and many of their supporters cannot bring themselves to embrace the nearest parts of the globe, let alone the parts further away.
There is nothing in leaving the EU that will make us any more able to 'embrace the world' than we were so able by playing our role as part of the European family of nations.
"Most successful exporter"??? Bollocks.
China is by far the biggest exporter, second is the USA, Germany a distant third
If your definition is exports per capita then the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Denmark, Sweden etc etc etc are all ahead of Germany. In fact Germany is.... fifteenth.
Germany at over $1.5t is second, behind China at $1.9t, despite being much smaller and poor in raw materials (except lignite and potash). Export goods include motor vehicles, machinery, chemicals, computer and electronic products, electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, metals, transport equipment, food items, textiles, rubber and plastic products
If Russia has built up as powerful an espionage and propaganda presence in the US as Kurt Eichenwald says in today's piece in Newsweek, where was the FBI? Eichenwald doesn't even mention the domestic security agency that is tasked with protecting the US against such activities by foreign powers. That agency appears to be helping Trump. Game over?
The FBI once appointed a Soviet spy to discover who the Soviet spy was in the FBI.
justin124 said: » show previous quotes ' 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.'
Tissue Price said: '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. '
I don't think the constitutional position is anything like as clear as you imply.I note that David Herdson referred to the possibility of Corbyn becoming PM in his article today - and other commentators have expressed a similar view. At the very least , forcing May to table a No Confidence Vote would delay any election by 2/3 weeks.
There is no provision under our Constitution for HM appointing a PM who cannot command the House. We shall see...
If the Government 'resigns' HM has to appoint another PM - as did Edward VII in December 1905 when he appointed Campbell-Bannerman to succeed Balfour.
Although the person appointed can be the outgoing one, as Churchill was in May 1945.
The fishermen, at least, seem destined to get what they want, unless Brexit is somehow thwarted altogether.
They'll get the end of the CFP and its replacement by a UK scheme, certainly. Whether they will get any higher quotas, and whether they continue to get good access to their big export markets on the continent, remain to be seen.
The global citizen thing throws up another question:
Dump trade deal with major developed bloc and all their associated deals.
Make deals increasingly with emerging economies, BRIC, MINT &c.
The risk is of UK business being forced to deal increasingly with 8 countries and more who are, yes, growing, but have problems of transparency and accountability almost across the board, to the exclusion of stable developed economies where the barriers have gone up.
What does this then do to the transparency, accountability and level of legal compliance of UK companies?
Why would we put up trade barriers with developed nations? No one has suggested we exclude them. In fact the first major trade deal will probably be with Australia.
Mainly loss of EU trade deals with e.g. Canada, though I note the recent discussions about grandfathering. And dealing on our own with a few WASP Commonwealth nations is hardly the stuff of global citizenship I imagined. To me the clear implication from Brexiteers was that a far greater proportion of our trade would be done with developing nations, and that some degree of turning away from the "dead-on-its-feet" EU was part of that.
Why turn away from anyone? The argument is, and has always been, open up to everyone. That you have chosen to interpret it as closing ourselves off is your choice, not mine.
To paraphrase "Brexit does not mean walking away from any trade deal". I know what you are driving at, but, errrrr.
It means leaving the EU, as in the political construct. The EU is much more than just a mere trading bloc, if it was just trade we wouldn't have left, even at the expense of not having a full say on our own external terms of trade. That is was much more is why we left. There's no need to stop trading with the remaining EU members once we've left though.
As I've been arguing all morning, holding a further vote in Parliament is intrinsically anti-democratic as doing so accepts that Parliament has the right to veto the people's decision. At best, this is storing up trouble for the future.
Yes, Parliament has the right to veto a referendum. That's representative democracy. Removing that right creates a direct democracy. I'm not necessarily against it, as I said. Do you favour it?
Yes. It would be absurd if Parliament could veto a referendum - if it wasn't prepared to accept one answer it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The fishermen, at least, seem destined to get what they want, unless Brexit is somehow thwarted altogether.
They'll get the end of the CFP and its replacement by a UK scheme, certainly. Whether they will get any higher quotas, and whether they continue to get good access to their big export markets on the continent, remain to be seen.
Surely a lot of our CFP quotas were sold to Spanish fleets years ago? Unwinding similar contracts would be problematic even if we still had enough trawlers.
Who are these US workless citizens? how do they live on US welfare? How do they survive?
There is a very good book on this. A US journalist did a Polly but with much more integrity and research and describes how she tried to get by workless or in low paying jobs.
Can't for the life of me remember its name or author I'm afraid.
Surely a lot of our CFP quotas were sold to Spanish fleets years ago? Unwinding similar contracts would be problematic even if we still had enough trawlers.
Yes, exactly. I suspect the fishermen are going to find that Brexit makes little difference in practice, or even makes things worse, given that two thirds of the catch is exported to other EU countries:
"Germany at over $1.5t is second, behind China at $1.9t, despite being much smaller and poor in raw materials (except lignite and potash). Export goods include motor vehicles, machinery, chemicals, computer and electronic products, electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, metals, transport equipment, food items, textiles, rubber and plastic products"
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
Who are these US workless citizens? how do they live on US welfare? How do they survive?
There is a very good book on this. A US journalist did a Polly but with much more integrity and research and describes how she tried to get by workless or in low paying jobs.
Can't for the life of me remember its name or author I'm afraid.
Wasn't there a BBC programme with Paul Daniels potless in America?
The fishermen, at least, seem destined to get what they want, unless Brexit is somehow thwarted altogether.
They'll get the end of the CFP and its replacement by a UK scheme, certainly. Whether they will get any higher quotas, and whether they continue to get good access to their big export markets on the continent, remain to be seen.
Surely a lot of our CFP quotas were sold to Spanish fleets years ago? Unwinding similar contracts would be problematic even if we still had enough trawlers.
Aren't most of these quotas time capped? It may just be easier to wait it out than trying to unwind them.
''Yes, exactly. I suspect the fishermen are going to find that Brexit makes little difference in practice, or even makes things worse, given that two thirds of the catch is exported to other EU countries:''
Yeh like the EU has a stack of fisheries to choose from.
Being in the EU clearly doesn't stop Germany going global.
It helps to have a currency which is 20-25% undervalued.
The value of the Euro is what it is. Talking about the hypothetical value of the Deutschmark has as much relevance as the hypothetical value of the Californian Dollar.
Wow, Tories finally developing a real base in rural north east and south Scotland now, as Labour lose one. Go Ruth!
Twitter Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim 9m9 minutes ago One Tory gain from the SNP, one technical gain from Lib Dems (although former co-leader Martin Kitts-Hayes was sitting as an independent)
Ruth is bringing the Scottish Tories off life support.
She'd be wasted at Westminster.
LOL one councillor in the arsehole of nowhere is not a recovery, patient is still on the ventilator and in a deep coma.
''Yes, exactly. I suspect the fishermen are going to find that Brexit makes little difference in practice, or even makes things worse, given that two thirds of the catch is exported to other EU countries:''
Yeh like the EU has a stack of fisheries to choose from.
Being in the EU clearly doesn't stop Germany going global.
It helps to have a currency which is 20-25% undervalued.
The value of the Euro is what it is. Talking about the hypothetical value of the Deutschmark has as much relevance as the hypothetical value of the Californian Dollar.
I refer you to my earlier post. Do shut up. Clearly you're one of those stupid people.
Talking about the hypothetical value of the Deutschmark has as much relevance as the hypothetical value of the Californian Dollar.
It would if it wasn't creating massive imbalances elsewhere.
Somebody has to pay for that 50% Spanish youth employment you know. The Germans would like us to share the cost. Pick up the tab of your own rigged currency.
Being in the EU clearly doesn't stop Germany going global.
It helps to have a currency which is 20-25% undervalued.
The value of the Euro is what it is. Talking about the hypothetical value of the Deutschmark has as much relevance as the hypothetical value of the Californian Dollar.
I refer you to my earlier post. Do shut up. Clearly you're one of those stupid people.
On Aberdeenshire: am I right in thinking these are single-member by-elections in STV multi-member wards?
In other words, a party can get 25% of the vote at the multi-member election, and that might be enough to win (say) one of four seats. But if that seat is subsequently resigned, and the same party gets 25% at the subsequent by-election, they will have "lost" the seat... until the next full council election.
I may have misunderstood. But if this is the case it's not yet overwhelming evidence for a surge.
Don't burst their bubble by telling them what reality is.
Who are these US workless citizens? how do they live on US welfare? How do they survive?
There is a very good book on this. A US journalist did a Polly but with much more integrity and research and describes how she tried to get by workless or in low paying jobs.
Can't for the life of me remember its name or author I'm afraid.
Wasn't there a BBC programme with Paul Daniels potless in America?
Adam Holloway of course made a very good film about homelessness here a few years ago.
Wow, Tories finally developing a real base in rural north east and south Scotland now, as Labour lose one. Go Ruth!
Twitter Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim 9m9 minutes ago One Tory gain from the SNP, one technical gain from Lib Dems (although former co-leader Martin Kitts-Hayes was sitting as an independent)
Ruth is bringing the Scottish Tories off life support.
She'd be wasted at Westminster.
She's also a soft Leaver, so would have no chance of being anything other than a very backbench MP.
Fear not, not for the first time Ruth has enthusiastically embraced the new reality. The SCons are uniformly pro Brexit now (or pro whatever vague interpretation of Brexit May is making on any given day). Last night's 2 by-elections adjoined Scotland's most Brexit friendly region, which may not be entirely unconnected to the results.
Oh I think the results have a lot more do with the increasingly unpopular domestic decisions and record of the SNP Government. Hiking up the council tax for higher bands, then skimming off the extra revenue raised to use centrally has gone down like a bucket of cold sick up here in Aberdeenshire!
I have to say the council tax decision has really really hacked me off bigtime. It is a mental decision that will cost them support.
Good afternoon Morris....how's the launch for the epic, fantasy Kingdom Asundur written by the brilliant, aspiring young novelist from Yorkshire who has a keen interest in Formula One coming along?
Isn't the explanation wrong? It says they have "fallen every month since April". But what the graph shows is they were lower than the equivalent month last year, since April.
Michael McDonald @ElectProject On top of this, we have wildcard of increase of FL unaffiliated voters voting early, up +651,463 votes over 2012 or 214.4% (not a typo!)
A little more clarity on what voters were told before Brexit.
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/794549556432293888
Except you legally can't do that under the EU treaties. I know this, you know this, Islam knows this.
So the official Vote Leave campaign misled voters, either deliberately or through ignorance, no?
That should be the point, but I actually don't remember anyone saying you couldn't negotiate before the exit procedure, probably because it was moot since Cameron said he'd trigger it in the morning.
"Germany at over $1.5t is second, behind China at $1.9t, despite being much smaller and poor in raw materials (except lignite and potash). Export goods include motor vehicles, machinery, chemicals, computer and electronic products, electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, metals, transport equipment, food items, textiles, rubber and plastic products"
Nevertheless it's a futile argument, given the size of the US and China compared to Germany. The figures I found put Germany second, not third, but OK, so what if I concede Germany is third not far behind China and the US, despite being much smaller?
This supports my argument that being inside the EU is clearly not an inhibitor to being a tremendously successful exporter, and, by extension, all this stuff about how the UK 'freed' from the restrictions of EU membership is better placed to export to the world is just more delusional BS.
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
If that is so, why are referendums even permitted in the UK.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
Wow, Tories finally developing a real base in rural north east and south Scotland now, as Labour lose one. Go Ruth!
Twitter Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim 9m9 minutes ago One Tory gain from the SNP, one technical gain from Lib Dems (although former co-leader Martin Kitts-Hayes was sitting as an independent)
Ruth is bringing the Scottish Tories off life support.
She'd be wasted at Westminster.
She's also a soft Leaver, so would have no chance of being anything other than a very backbench MP.
Fear not, not for the first time Ruth has enthusiastically embraced the new reality. The SCons are uniformly pro Brexit now (or pro whatever vague interpretation of Brexit May is making on any given day). Last night's 2 by-elections adjoined Scotland's most Brexit friendly region, which may not be entirely unconnected to the results.
Oh I think the results have a lot more do with the increasingly unpopular domestic decisions and record of the SNP Government. Hiking up the council tax for higher bands, then skimming off the extra revenue raised to use centrally has gone down like a bucket of cold sick up here in Aberdeenshire!
I have to say the council tax decision has really really hacked me off bigtime. It is a mental decision that will cost them support.
*Is* costing support, if the by-elections are anything to go by (while accepting that Aberdeenshire is not wholly representative of Scotland at large).
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
If that is so, why are referendums even permitted in the UK.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
They're both representative democracies.
In one, the demos elects the representatives, who decide on a PM who makes the decisions. In the other, the demos elects the representatives, who vote by member on the decisions.
"Germany at over $1.5t is second, behind China at $1.9t, despite being much smaller and poor in raw materials (except lignite and potash). Export goods include motor vehicles, machinery, chemicals, computer and electronic products, electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, metals, transport equipment, food items, textiles, rubber and plastic products"
Germany is good at keeping debt low, and finding work for its people, but its demographics are horrible, unless they can keep importing millions of Syrians with no skills and no German
The wages are stagnant because Germany previously used wage dumping to hollow out European industry (including our own). Now they have locked in that advantage with the Euro. The reason the Euro is fundamentally broken is because of Germany's mercantilism. If they left the DM would appreciate to beyond parity with Sterling and around $1.40, erasing most of their trade advantage.
Wow, Tories finally developing a real base in rural north east and south Scotland now, as Labour lose one. Go Ruth!
Twitter Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim 9m9 minutes ago One Tory gain from the SNP, one technical gain from Lib Dems (although former co-leader Martin Kitts-Hayes was sitting as an independent)
Ruth is bringing the Scottish Tories off life support.
She'd be wasted at Westminster.
LOL one councillor in the arsehole of nowhere is not a recovery, patient is still on the ventilator and in a deep coma.
Remind me - who's the largest opposition at Holyrood? Sure, being second is still being first loser but that's a considerable advance on being second- or third-loser.
Wow, Tories finally developing a real base in rural north east and south Scotland now, as Labour lose one. Go Ruth!
Twitter Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim 9m9 minutes ago One Tory gain from the SNP, one technical gain from Lib Dems (although former co-leader Martin Kitts-Hayes was sitting as an independent)
Ruth is bringing the Scottish Tories off life support.
She'd be wasted at Westminster.
LOL one councillor in the arsehole of nowhere is not a recovery, patient is still on the ventilator and in a deep coma.
Remind me - who's the largest opposition at Holyrood? Sure, being second is still being first loser but that's a considerable advance on being second- or third-loser.
malcolmg is a long standing Scottish Tory Surge denier.
Still a couple of weeks off from formal announcement. I'm at the promotional stage [which largely involves asking reviewers if they'd like an advanced review copy].
Mr. Divvie, the official Leave campaign aren't the Government. Also, I doubt they'd agree to the Lords having a veto over Article 50.
Apart from that, Faisal Islam's making another very intelligent point.
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
If that is so, why are referendums even permitted in the UK.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
Referendums are permitted in the UK when created by Parliament. When not created by Parliament through an Act of Parliament, they do not occur - Government cannot use it's prerogative powers to create one. (To put it another way, Parliament has the power to call or refuse to call a referendum; referendums do not have the power to call or refuse to call a Parliament. Regardless of the desires of the Government)
A referendum in the UK only automatically achieves a change of law when the Act creating said referendum makes that automatic (eg the AV Referendum act). In cases other than that, a further Act of Parliament is required to action the change.
For the Government to have ignored that is stupid on their behalf and does call their competency into question.
A little more clarity on what voters were told before Brexit.
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/794549556432293888
Except you legally can't do that under the EU treaties. I know this, you know this, Islam knows this.
So the official Vote Leave campaign misled voters, either deliberately or through ignorance, no?
That should be the point, but I actually don't remember anyone saying you couldn't negotiate before the exit procedure, probably because it was moot since Cameron said he'd trigger it in the morning.
So all we're stuck with is someone definitely saying we could negotiate before the exit procedure.
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
If that is so, why are referendums even permitted in the UK.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
I suppose what *does* distinguish this referendum from the others is that most of the rest were about the public either ratifying or rejecting decisions that the government had taken.
This one was truly, a consultative exercise. Nonetheless, I think the Judges were far too dismissive of referenda generally.
A little more clarity on what voters were told before Brexit.
twitter.com/faisalislam/status/794549556432293888
Except you legally can't do that under the EU treaties. I know this, you know this, Islam knows this.
So the official Vote Leave campaign misled voters, either deliberately or through ignorance, no?
That should be the point, but I actually don't remember anyone saying you couldn't negotiate before the exit procedure, probably because it was moot since Cameron said he'd trigger it in the morning.
So all we're stuck with is someone definitely saying we could negotiate before the exit procedure.
Who was speaking out of their proverbial, but not challenged about it during the campaign.
Wow, Tories finally developing a real base in rural north east and south Scotland now, as Labour lose one. Go Ruth!
Twitter Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim 9m9 minutes ago One Tory gain from the SNP, one technical gain from Lib Dems (although former co-leader Martin Kitts-Hayes was sitting as an independent)
Ruth is bringing the Scottish Tories off life support.
She'd be wasted at Westminster.
LOL one councillor in the arsehole of nowhere is not a recovery, patient is still on the ventilator and in a deep coma.
Remind me - who's the largest opposition at Holyrood? Sure, being second is still being first loser but that's a considerable advance on being second- or third-loser.
Best of the worst , not much to cheer there I am afraid.
Still a couple of weeks off from formal announcement. I'm at the promotional stage [which largely involves asking reviewers if they'd like an advanced review copy].
Mr. Divvie, the official Leave campaign aren't the Government. Also, I doubt they'd agree to the Lords having a veto over Article 50.
Apart from that, Faisal Islam's making another very intelligent point.
I hope you didn't reply with a cartoon yellow face on purpose. I'm actually hoping that your book (Kingdom Asundur) does very well. You strike me as the kind of bloke that deserves a good break.
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
If that is so, why are referendums even permitted in the UK.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
I suppose what *does* distinguish this referendum from the others is that most of the rest were about the public either ratifying or rejecting decisions that the government had taken.
This one was truly, a consultative exercise. Nonetheless, I think the Judges were far too dismissive of referenda generally.
The Government could have made the referendum mandatory but chose to make it advisory.
Mr. Tyson, I agree. A good break would be very welcome [problem with part 1 of a trilogy is that it's like the first corner of a Grand Prix. Getting it right doesn't guarantee you'll win, but screwing it up guarantees you won't].
Anyway, when it's up for pre-order I'll mention it [trying not to overdo it. I think it's ok to raise it now and then but I don't want to be seen as spamming].
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
If that is so, why are referendums even permitted in the UK.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
I suppose what *does* distinguish this referendum from the others is that most of the rest were about the public either ratifying or rejecting decisions that the government had taken.
This one was truly, a consultative exercise. Nonetheless, I think the Judges were far too dismissive of referenda generally.
Correct me if I am wrong, but surely the AV referendum was consultative, and (at a stretch) so was the first EU one, although I could see you arguing that in both ways.
It's now been a week since the FBI intervention in the presidential election, and it seems that its effect is now fully accounted for in the 538 model. The estimated vote shares have been "shimmying" for about a day and a half. Clinton's current lead (polls only model) is 3.3%, which is up slightly from the minimum of 3.1%. (As the model uses a regression line to correct some of the data, it wouldn't be surprising if there was something of an overshoot in the response to a sudden change in voting intentions.)
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
If that is so, why are referendums even permitted in the UK.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
I suppose what *does* distinguish this referendum from the others is that most of the rest were about the public either ratifying or rejecting decisions that the government had taken.
This one was truly, a consultative exercise. Nonetheless, I think the Judges were far too dismissive of referenda generally.
Correct me if I am wrong, but surely the AV referendum was consultative, and (at a stretch) so was the first EU one, although I could see you arguing that in both ways.
I believe the AV one actually passed the legislation to action AV subject to the confirmation of a referendum
The first EC one was to endorse the decision made in 1972 to enter the EC.
justin124 said: » show previous quotes ' 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.'
Tissue Price said: '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. '
I don't think the constitutional position is anything like as clear as you imply.I note that David Herdson referred to the possibility of Corbyn becoming PM in his article today - and other commentators have expressed a similar view. At the very least , forcing May to table a No Confidence Vote would delay any election by 2/3 weeks.
There is no provision under our Constitution for HM appointing a PM who cannot command the House. We shall see...
If the Government 'resigns' HM has to appoint another PM - as did Edward VII in December 1905 when he appointed Campbell-Bannerman to succeed Balfour.
This is the closest parallel but I submit that we (the UK collectively) are not going to appoint a Prime Minister with zero power or authority. The state would look ridiculous at home & abroad. Some mechanism will be found.
But if the existing PM resigns he/she is no longer in office. Someone has to occupt the position Corbyn would not have a majority - so like Campbell-Bannerman a Dissolution would have to happen in due course.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
I'm arguing that if Parliament calls a referendum, then on that issue we have a direct democracy, and that it would be absurd and deeply damaging for Parliament to call for a mulligan if it gets a result it doesn't like.
Thank you - I've just read it but I can't see the section dealing with authorising Government to enact Article 50 should the referendum be positive. Could you link directly to that section?
Not sure how to link directly in Hansard, but it's the second sentence (apologies, I got this wrong when I cited it earlier, saying it was the first sentence) of the Government's opening statement of the Commons second reading debate. Nothing in the Act as passed contradicts it.
And I note your position that votes in Parliament are intrinsically anti-democratic.
If they can override a decision made by referendum, then they are.
You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
If that is so, why are referendums even permitted in the UK.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
I suppose what *does* distinguish this referendum from the others is that most of the rest were about the public either ratifying or rejecting decisions that the government had taken.
This one was truly, a consultative exercise. Nonetheless, I think the Judges were far too dismissive of referenda generally.
Correct me if I am wrong, but surely the AV referendum was consultative, and (at a stretch) so was the first EU one, although I could see you arguing that in both ways.
I believe the AV one actually passed the legislation to action AV subject to the confirmation of a referendum
The first EC one was to endorse the decision made in 1972 to enter the EC.
I see your point that AV had been legislated for, and all it needed was final approval, as it were.
"Germany at over $1.5t is second, behind China at $1.9t, despite being much smaller and poor in raw materials (except lignite and potash). Export goods include motor vehicles, machinery, chemicals, computer and electronic products, electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, metals, transport equipment, food items, textiles, rubber and plastic products"
Germany is good at keeping debt low, and finding work for its people, but its demographics are horrible, unless they can keep importing millions of Syrians with no skills and no German
justin124 said: » show previous quotes ' 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.'
Tissue Price said: '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. '
I don't think the constitutional position is anything like as clear as you imply.I note that David Herdson referred to the possibility of Corbyn becoming PM in his article today - and other commentators have expressed a similar view. At the very least , forcing May to table a No Confidence Vote would delay any election by 2/3 weeks.
There is no provision under our Constitution for HM appointing a PM who cannot command the House. We shall see...
That's not true (and not logical). A PM appoints someone who she believes is capable of commanding the confidence of the House. As the FTPA provisions have yet to be used, it's something of an unknown as to how precisely they'd work.
However, the Act requires that if a government is No Confidenced, an election follows unless there's a vote of confidence in the government within two weeks. That clearly implies a new government in place (or that the same one remains and that parliament's view changes) before the vote. It may be that Corbyn declined to form a government, having nothing like the support necessary. It may be that HMQ doesn't invite him to form a government unless he has shown to her satisfaction that he could gain the confidence of the House. But all this is to be determined at the time and cannot be assumed with any confidence.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/we-voted-brexit-keep-parliament-sovereign-wont-be-gagged
If it was sovereign it could impose restrictions on freedom of movement tomorrow.
It can't, because that power had been ceded to the European Union. One of many powers ceded there.
UK employment rate 74.5%
US employment rate 62.8%
Tariff elimination for agricultural goods isn't the same as removal of all standards, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
Hopefully it will be uneventful and we'll wake up to four more years of continuity slow decline.
No regrexit but a fool.
However, the Act requires that if a government is No Confidenced, an election follows unless there's a vote of confidence in the government within two weeks. That clearly implies a new government in place (or that the same one remains and that parliament's view changes) before the vote. It may be that Corbyn declined to form a government, having nothing like the support necessary. It may be that HMQ doesn't invite him to form a government unless he has shown to her satisfaction that he could gain the confidence of the House. But all this is to be determined at the time and cannot be assumed with any confidence.
The fishermen, at least, seem destined to get what they want, unless Brexit is somehow thwarted altogether.
Can't for the life of me remember its name or author I'm afraid.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fishing-industry-in-2014-statistics-published
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-exports-usa-idUSKCN0VT0E8
Being in the EU clearly doesn't stop Germany going global.
http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/37B904AE8171433780450F71D135ED48.ashx
Outside the EU they would have a much stronger currency, rather than the rigged one they use now.
The corollary is the dreadful problems the others are having, which they want us to stay in to help them pay for.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf You are arguing for a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. Both are democratic. One is the democratic system of the United Kingdom.
https://twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/status/794547041380790272
Yeh like the EU has a stack of fisheries to choose from.
It would if it wasn't creating massive imbalances elsewhere.
Somebody has to pay for that 50% Spanish youth employment you know. The Germans would like us to share the cost. Pick up the tab of your own rigged currency.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/794549556432293888
Isn't the explanation wrong? It says they have "fallen every month since April". But what the graph shows is they were lower than the equivalent month last year, since April.
On top of this, we have wildcard of increase of FL unaffiliated voters voting early, up +651,463 votes over 2012 or 214.4% (not a typo!)
This supports my argument that being inside the EU is clearly not an inhibitor to being a tremendously successful exporter, and, by extension, all this stuff about how the UK 'freed' from the restrictions of EU membership is better placed to export to the world is just more delusional BS.
The reality is that we now have a hybrid system. Constitutional commentators and lawyers need to update their manuals to recognise it. Citing Dicey, for example, is fine but he was writing 100 years ago, before the EU, before international law as we now know it, before devolved parliaments and before referendums. The crown-in-parliament is not absolutely unfettered.
(Nor has it ever been in practice: no-one can reasonably suggest that, for example, the Independence of India Act 1947 was anything other than an irrevocable piece of legislation)
In one, the demos elects the representatives, who decide on a PM who makes the decisions.
In the other, the demos elects the representatives, who vote by member on the decisions.
Still a couple of weeks off from formal announcement. I'm at the promotional stage [which largely involves asking reviewers if they'd like an advanced review copy].
Mr. Divvie, the official Leave campaign aren't the Government. Also, I doubt they'd agree to the Lords having a veto over Article 50.
Apart from that, Faisal Islam's making another very intelligent point.
When not created by Parliament through an Act of Parliament, they do not occur - Government cannot use it's prerogative powers to create one.
(To put it another way, Parliament has the power to call or refuse to call a referendum; referendums do not have the power to call or refuse to call a Parliament. Regardless of the desires of the Government)
A referendum in the UK only automatically achieves a change of law when the Act creating said referendum makes that automatic (eg the AV Referendum act). In cases other than that, a further Act of Parliament is required to action the change.
For the Government to have ignored that is stupid on their behalf and does call their competency into question.
This one was truly, a consultative exercise. Nonetheless, I think the Judges were far too dismissive of referenda generally.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/north-carolina-early-vote-tracker.html?_r=0
Really hard to see how Trump wins nationally if it's that tight in GA. Should be leading there by a country mile.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/794554820241653760
Anyway, when it's up for pre-order I'll mention it [trying not to overdo it. I think it's ok to raise it now and then but I don't want to be seen as spamming].
The first EC one was to endorse the decision made in 1972 to enter the EC.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/