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.
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.
It shouldn't have been made an advisory referendum then.
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.
So we agree the referendum was sold on a false prospectus. It's reasonable for parliament to consider what the people 'meant' by the result.
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.
So we agree the referendum was sold on a false prospectus. It's reasonable for parliament to consider what the people 'meant' by the result.
It 'meant' leaving the EU. The only way to do that is to invoke Article 50.
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.
That's not how I read it; they appear far from dismissive to me:
“We emphasise that the Secretary of State’s position on this part of the argument and the observations in the preceding paragraph relate to a pure legal point about the effect in law of the referendum. This court does not question the importance of the referendum as a political event, the significance of which will have to be assessed and taken into account elsewhere…”
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.
"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.
Alternatively, you could just admit that you lied.
As a general point, I have a problem with accusations of lying when there was no intention to deceive. The accusation is itself a lie, I suppose. You could have simply said Ian was wrong.
FWIW I'm guessing the fall in the value of the € versus the $ at the end of 2014 meant the US and Germany swapped places in terms of absolute value of exports.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
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.
Well I agree that had the 2015 Act included a clause stating "if the result is that 'Leave' receives most support then the government shall invoke Article 50 of the TEU; if the result is that 'Remain' receives most support then the government shall not invoke Article 50 of the TEU", then that would have saved a lot of bother.
However, your first paragraph makes my point. Parliament has already been consulted when the Act establishing the referendum was passed and hence, implicitly, it was willing to accept either outcome. As the Crown has prerogative powers in the area in question in this case, the authorisation of the referendum by parliament combined with the referendum result ought to be sufficient to permit the prerogative to be used, whether or not the Act makes the consequence deterministic.
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.
Making it mandatory would have been very difficult, given that there was no detailed legislative proposal to implement.
The Sun caught out racebaiting. At least they didn't put a bone through her nose.
Hmm. That's the second time you've posted that, isn't it? And if anyone has altered her skin tone it appears to be the Times. Compare with this photograph:
"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.
I'll agree it's an utterly futile argument; Germany's performance is of very little help in assessing the future performance of the UK, in or out of the EU.
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.
I found the contrast striking between the extent to which the judges tried to interpret the intentions of MPs during the passage of the 1972 European Communities Act, and their lack of interest in the intentions of MPs during the passage of the 2015 Referendum Act.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
I share the concerns he has about the direction of the Tory party.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
My own view, from reading his article, is that he supported Leave as a protest against the EU, and was dismayed to discover that Leave won.
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)
Much is permitted, including referendums, providing parliament legislates for it. If you want referendums to be binding, then legislate to that effect.
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
Another Trump+2 in Georgia, via Landmark. Awfully close there, SM had it +1/tie in their last two.
Really hard to see how Trump wins nationally if it's that tight in GA. Should be leading there by a country mile.
But if it really is close in Georgia and Texas and Arizona and if the polls really are neck and neck, then Trump must be doing better than Romney in a bunch of states too?
If he correlates the reaction of media to the reaction of a head of state then he's something of a lying cretin. Or a Belgian.
Also, important point vis-à-vis Hungary and Poland:
* UK population decides it can no longer stomach inflexible EU rules. Rather than disregard the rules, it votes to leave EU. Cue caterwauling, fury, tantrums, dark threats from amongst the remaining members, but especially Eurofederalist extremists.
* Poland and Hungary go screwing about with their free press and judicial systems, and refuse point blank to swallow migrant quotas. EU institutions raise concerns. Poles and Hungarians tell EU where to stick those concerns. EU does fuck all.
The supreme irony is that it is Britain's very respect for the rules - its own and the EU's alike - which has, arguably, precipitated Brexit. If we had simply finessed our way out of the free movement of people years ago - essentially by declaring that the country could no longer cope and reimposing border controls unilaterally, possibly accompanied by a declaration of a state of emergency - then the surrender of the EU to the central Europeans' intransigence suggests that they would've either issued a toothless rebuke and tolerated the situation, or negotiated a fudge to prevent it from escalating. The sovereignty movement would probably not have won June's referendum without the extra boost from public anger over open borders - and indeed, under these circumstances, Ukip and the Tory right would in all likelihood still be campaigning fruitlessly for a referendum now.
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
2 out of 3 aint bad. "Lord Justice Sales is a close friend of Tony Blair, the former prime minister who campaigned for Remain and wants a second vote on Britain's EU membership. Lord Thomas co-founded a Europhile legal group. "Telegraph
Yes. As a member of the EU, we can demand approximately what we want and stand a good chance of getting it; outside the EU we can demand exactly what we want and stand very little chance of getting it.
That's based on what? Historically the EU has sacrificed services trade and investment freedom in favour of goods tariff reductions. That's unfavourable to the UK.
Simple logic. As part of a large block, we are in a much better position to make favourable deals with third countries, even if they are not exactly the deals we'd aim for. On our own, we can aim for exactly the deals we want, but have less firepower to achieve them.
No we are not. We are at the whim of the other 27 members and often as not the trade deals founder because of that. There is a good reason that EFTA have more free trade deals with other countries than the EU does and had a trade deal with Canada 7 years before the EU.
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.
Well I agree that had the 2015 Act included a clause stating "if the result is that 'Leave' receives most support then the government shall invoke Article 50 of the TEU; if the result is that 'Remain' receives most support then the government shall not invoke Article 50 of the TEU", then that would have saved a lot of bother.
However, your first paragraph makes my point. Parliament has already been consulted when the Act establishing the referendum was passed and hence, implicitly, it was willing to accept either outcome. As the Crown has prerogative powers in the area in question in this case, the authorisation of the referendum by parliament combined with the referendum result ought to be sufficient to permit the prerogative to be used, whether or not the Act makes the consequence deterministic.
Not even the Government's lawyers tried to make the case that the Referendum Act gave authority in that way - it could have been put in the Act, it was in the past for things such as the AV Referendum, and it was not in this case.
The Government can't go "Oops, we meant to put it in but forgot; let's all act as if we did." If they did, given the briefing paper the Government passed out to all parliamentarians saying that it explicitly did NOT give such authority would probably have scuppered them.
In short - they could have done that, they did in previous ones where it was to be automatic, they didn't in this one and they wrote and distributed a paper to the parliamentarians saying it was advisory only
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
2 out of 3 aint bad. "Lord Justice Sales is a close friend of Tony Blair, the former prime minister who campaigned for Remain and wants a second vote on Britain's EU membership. Lord Thomas co-founded a Europhile legal group. "Telegraph
This was always going to be a politically sensitive case. Out of interest, does anyone know who decided on the panel to hear this case? (I assume the judges concerned didn't just stick their hands up and shout "Me Sir! Me!!")
The Sun caught out racebaiting. At least they didn't put a bone through her nose. twitter.com/hapoel4/status/794531253315899392
I've seen this meme on Twitter. I have serious doubts that a picture editor at the Sun would ever "darken" a face to provoke readers. I know you think all journalists are scum, but mostly they're not. Especially the picture eds. They're gentle folk.
Moreover, if you look at other photos of Gina Miller, the darker face seems closer to the truth: she really is quite dark.
(NB that second is from the Times)
My guess it's just something to do with differences in reproduction and printing, and not some weird racist Brexit conspiracy. But I could be wrong.
But that random twitterer said the Sun INTENTIONALLY did it. Surely people don't just make things like that up?
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 2h2 hours ago Stephen Phillips succeeds David Cameron as Steward & Bailiff of Manor of Northstead - that's office under Crown which enables MPs to quit
Is this because Zac is already doing the Chilterns Hundreds job?
Hillary's ECV spread improves slightly for the first time in over a week from a mid-spread of 295 this morning to 298 currently. Also, 538.com is showing considerably improved prospects for her with her percentage chance of becoming POTUS having jumped by THREE WHOLE POINTS since yesterday from an all time low of 64.8% to 67.8%, which I view as being quite significant, given the sheer volume of polling which is taking place and the consistency that such an increase would therefore require. I've done all my betting, for better or worse, but those favouring Hillary but who so far have hesitated, might wish to take another look at the various betting opportunities before the bookies fully latch onto what may prove to be a late trend in her favour, but as ever DYOR!
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
They'd probably have a job convincing people they're independent.
Lots of middle aged blokes from the same social background doesnt exactly place a strong argument in favour of a balanced judiciary.
''At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary.''
People are entitled to say the judiciary is politicised if they want to, surely. Whether right or wrong, free speech says we can say judges are activist if we want to
If the government were trying to somehow 'de-power' the judiciary, that would be a completely different matter. May isn't.
The only person who has called for judicial de-powering is Suzanne Evans. Such a call is completely beyond the pale.
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
2 out of 3 aint bad. "Lord Justice Sales is a close friend of Tony Blair, the former prime minister who campaigned for Remain and wants a second vote on Britain's EU membership. Lord Thomas co-founded a Europhile legal group. "Telegraph
The third one is openly gay, you know. And he fenced!
The idea of reporting the reasoning behind the judgment - which is clear and well put together, whether or not you agree with it - seems to be beyond the journalist, who prefers to rely on unfounded innuendo.
Recently the Telegraph's only value has been as toilet paper, its journalism has been so poor. But paper with such lazy and lousy ad hominem attacks (one of which is so flimsy that it is based on someone that the judge is friends with) wouldn't even get to touch my shitty arse.
Florida and North Carolina back to pale blue. Don't quite understand why, but some good news for Clinton
You can see why if you click updates on the left - after every batch of polls they add in the updated model %s (it dynamically updates based on which model you've selected). When the overall picture shifts, so too do all the states, to varying degrees.
It's a nice feature for when SM or the like dump a bazillion state polls at once, you can see the net impact at a glance.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
My own view, from reading his article, is that he supported Leave as a protest against the EU, and was dismayed to discover that Leave won.
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
They'd probably have a job convincing people they're independent.
Lots of middle aged blokes from the same social background doesnt exactly place a strong argument in favour of a balanced judiciary.
The only organisation more male , pale and stale is the Lib Dems.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
I share the concerns he has about the direction of the Tory party.
chortle
is this the bit where we can play the Cameroon argument in reverse and you get told to fk off and join the LibDems ?
The Sun caught out racebaiting. At least they didn't put a bone through her nose. twitter.com/hapoel4/status/794531253315899392
I've seen this meme on Twitter. I have serious doubts that a picture editor at the Sun would ever "darken" a face to provoke readers. I know you think all journalists are scum, but mostly they're not. Especially the picture eds. They're gentle folk.
Moreover, if you look at other photos of Gina Miller, the darker face seems closer to the truth: she really is quite dark.
(NB that second is from the Times)
My guess it's just something to do with differences in reproduction and printing, and not some weird racist Brexit conspiracy. But I could be wrong.
But that random twitterer said the Sun INTENTIONALLY did it. Surely people don't just make things like that up?
It was a bright sunny day when the court ruling was made, needless to say photos will vary considerably, although the Sun photo is much closer to the Guardian’s than the Times'.
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.
Well I agree that had the 2015 Act included a clause stating "if the result is that 'Leave' receives most support then the government shall invoke Article 50 of the TEU; if the result is that 'Remain' receives most support then the government shall not invoke Article 50 of the TEU", then that would have saved a lot of bother.
However, your first paragraph makes my point. Parliament has already been consulted when the Act establishing the referendum was passed and hence, implicitly, it was willing to accept either outcome. As the Crown has prerogative powers in the area in question in this case, the authorisation of the referendum by parliament combined with the referendum result ought to be sufficient to permit the prerogative to be used, whether or not the Act makes the consequence deterministic.
Not even the Government's lawyers tried to make the case that the Referendum Act gave authority in that way - it could have been put in the Act, it was in the past for things such as the AV Referendum, and it was not in this case.
The Government can't go "Oops, we meant to put it in but forgot; let's all act as if we did." If they did, given the briefing paper the Government passed out to all parliamentarians saying that it explicitly did NOT give such authority would probably have scuppered them.
In short - they could have done that, they did in previous ones where it was to be automatic, they didn't in this one and they wrote and distributed a paper to the parliamentarians saying it was advisory only
I'm not arguing that the Act authorised the government; I'm arguing that the referendum did, as an inherent feature of referendums expressing the will of the sovereign people.
The question of whether the referendum was advisory is a side-issue. That would only be pertinent if the question was whether the government was obliged to invoke A50 (which it isn't). The question instead is whether the government can invoke A50 following the referendum result.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 2h2 hours ago Stephen Phillips succeeds David Cameron as Steward & Bailiff of Manor of Northstead - that's office under Crown which enables MPs to quit
Is this because Zac is already doing the Chilterns Hundreds job?
Yes.
Are the Chiltern Hundred going to be vacant if Zac is returned to parliament?
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 2h2 hours ago Stephen Phillips succeeds David Cameron as Steward & Bailiff of Manor of Northstead - that's office under Crown which enables MPs to quit
Is this because Zac is already doing the Chilterns Hundreds job?
Yes.
Are the Chiltern Hundred going to be vacant if Zac is returned to parliament?
They are already vacant, as he was immediately dismissed from the post.
The Sun caught out racebaiting. At least they didn't put a bone through her nose.
Hmm. That's the second time you've posted that, isn't it? And if anyone has altered her skin tone it appears to be the Times. Compare with this photograph:
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 2h2 hours ago Stephen Phillips succeeds David Cameron as Steward & Bailiff of Manor of Northstead - that's office under Crown which enables MPs to quit
Is this because Zac is already doing the Chilterns Hundreds job?
Yes.
Are the Chiltern Hundred going to be vacant if Zac is returned to parliament?
It should really be an anti-HS2 MP occupying the Chilterns.
''The idea of reporting the reasoning behind the judgment - which is clear and well put together, whether or not you agree with it - seems to be beyond the journalist, who prefers to rely on unfounded innuendo.''
Newspapers can say whatever they like within the current bounds. That's free speech.
The Sun caught out racebaiting. At least they didn't put a bone through her nose.
Hmm. That's the second time you've posted that, isn't it? And if anyone has altered her skin tone it appears to be the Times. Compare with this photograph:
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
I share the concerns he has about the direction of the Tory party.
chortle
is this the bit where we can play the Cameroon argument in reverse and you get told to fk off and join the LibDems ?
I'm staying, it is much more fun staying in the tent and pissing in. I'm not French and surrending at the first bit of difficulty, I stay on and fight.
My fear is the Tory party is torn asunder, and Brexit is the new Corn Laws.
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.)
Out of 12 contests, the error in the lead was 7.2 points in one (1980), 3.4 and 3.3 in two more (2000 and 1996), 2.7 in another (2012) and otherwise less than two points.
On the basis of those figures and Clinton's 3.3% lead in the 538 average, a rough estimate of the likelihood of Trump winning the popular vote next week would be 12.5%.
The Sun caught out racebaiting. At least they didn't put a bone through her nose.
Hmm. That's the second time you've posted that, isn't it? And if anyone has altered her skin tone it appears to be the Times. Compare with this photograph:
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
They'd probably have a job convincing people they're independent.
Lots of middle aged blokes from the same social background doesnt exactly place a strong argument in favour of a balanced judiciary.
The only organisation more male , pale and stale is the Lib Dems.
it's odd how the people who preach "diversity" never want it to apply to them
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
They'd probably have a job convincing people they're independent.
Lots of middle aged blokes from the same social background doesnt exactly place a strong argument in favour of a balanced judiciary.
The only organisation more male , pale and stale is the Lib Dems.
it's odd how the people who preach "diversity" never want it to apply to them
The inverse of the people who preach nationalism from the Costa del Sol.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
I share the concerns he has about the direction of the Tory party.
chortle
is this the bit where we can play the Cameroon argument in reverse and you get told to fk off and join the LibDems ?
I'm staying, it is much more fun staying in the tent and pissing in. I'm not French and surrending at the first bit of difficulty, I stay on and fight.
My fear is the Tory party is torn asunder, and Brexit is the new Corn Laws.
bullshit
I had it on very good authority ( you ) that post the vote the Tories would come together and all would be sweetness and light
At some point someone in government is going to need to say something about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. It would be well if they did so sooner rather than later. This is an entirely avoidable minefield that they are blundering into.
They'd probably have a job convincing people they're independent.
Lots of middle aged blokes from the same social background doesnt exactly place a strong argument in favour of a balanced judiciary.
The only organisation more male , pale and stale is the Lib Dems.
it's odd how the people who preach "diversity" never want it to apply to them
It’s not the LibDem’s ‘fault’ that there are ethnically diverse candidates but they don’t get elected. You might take a different view about LibDem voters.
Hillary's ECV spread improves slightly for the first time in over a week from a mid-spread of 295 this morning to 298 currently. Also, 538.com is showing considerably improved prospects for her with her percentage chance of becoming POTUS having jumped by THREE WHOLE POINTS since yesterday from an all time low of 64.8% to 67.8%, which I view as being quite significant, given the sheer volume of polling which is taking place and the consistency that such an increase would therefore require. I've done all my betting, for better or worse, but those favouring Hillary but who so far have hesitated, might wish to take another look at the various betting opportunities before the bookies fully latch onto what may prove to be a late trend in her favour, but as ever DYOR!
I think it is looking a bit brighter for Hillary. The ship has steadied. Ground game and early voting feeling pretty good to me from a distance. Hispanic vote looking crucial in some states and which Trump has zero chance with. I have upped on Clinton slightly myself this afternoon.
Much is permitted, including referendums, providing parliament legislates for it. If you want referendums to be binding, then legislate to that effect.
But if you take the Parliamentary absolutist line then, if the EU Ref Act had had some extra waffle inserted into it that explicitly stated the binding nature of the vote, it would effectively have no relevance. Parliament could simply enact a new piece of legislation countermanding the old one.
My reading of what @david_herdson was arguing is that the courts ought to recognise that times have changed since Gladstone and Disraeli were battling it out, and if Parliament legislates for a referendum, the people have a reasonable expectation that the outcome of the referendum must be acted upon. Effectively, the sovereignty of the people should be recognised as superior to that of Parliamentarians, and thus the previously assumed right of Parliament to dismiss the popular verdict if it sees fit should now be consigned to the constitutional dustbin.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
I share the concerns he has about the direction of the Tory party.
chortle
is this the bit where we can play the Cameroon argument in reverse and you get told to fk off and join the LibDems ?
I'm staying, it is much more fun staying in the tent and pissing in. I'm not French and surrending at the first bit of difficulty, I stay on and fight.
My fear is the Tory party is torn asunder, and Brexit is the new Corn Laws.
bullshit
I had it on very good authority ( you ) that post the vote the Tories would come together and all would be sweetness and light
That's assuming Remain won, because many in the Leave camp, like Stephen Phillips, were just playing games.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
I share the concerns he has about the direction of the Tory party.
chortle
is this the bit where we can play the Cameroon argument in reverse and you get told to fk off and join the LibDems ?
I'm staying, it is much more fun staying in the tent and pissing in. I'm not French and surrending at the first bit of difficulty, I stay on and fight.
My fear is the Tory party is torn asunder, and Brexit is the new Corn Laws.
bullshit
I had it on very good authority ( you ) that post the vote the Tories would come together and all would be sweetness and light
That was in the expectation of a Remain victory and Dave & George being in charge.
Looks like the Trump charge is weakening, but does anyone still have that feeling that there we are still one political (i.e. not Al-Qaeda) twist short of a presidential election campaign. Especially given 538's chart of how winning chance has evolved over time - a graph I would describe as having a 'repelling magnets' form. And the Trump surge comes towards a possible quiet spot between early voting winding down a little and the on-the-day voting.
Just got a hunch that on Sunday / Monday a final event that crystallises the election result could hit and the previous course of the election suggests it probably won't be favourable to Trump. That timing would be early enough to be taken on board by the electorate and late enough to be difficult to counter.
''They'd probably have a job convincing people they're independent.''
Its not like the government is refusing to abide by the judiciary's decisions.
THAT would be impinging upon the independence of the judiciary.
Meeks just wants us to accept the decisions of a highly politicised profession at face value.
I'm not expecting you accept court decisions at face value. I'd like you to begin to justify your repeated claim that the judiciary is "highly politicised". But before that, I'd like you to give the least hint that you begin to understand the formal basis on which the court reached its decision.
Looks like the Trump charge is weakening, but does anyone still have that feeling that there we are still one political (i.e. not Al-Qaeda) twist short of a presidential election campaign. Especially given 538's chart of how winning chance has evolved over time - a graph I would describe as having a 'repelling magnets' form. And the Trump surge comes towards a possible quiet spot between early voting winding down a little and the on-the-day voting.
Just got a hunch that on Sunday / Monday a final event that crystallises the election result could hit and the previous course of the election suggests it probably won't be favourable to Trump. That timing would be early enough to be taken on board by the electorate and late enough to be difficult to counter.
I'm glad I actually laid him a touch and he has headed OUT for once.
Last time I backed him he went out, and laid him before that he went in.
Much is permitted, including referendums, providing parliament legislates for it. If you want referendums to be binding, then legislate to that effect.
But if you take the Parliamentary absolutist line then, if the EU Ref Act had had some extra waffle inserted into it that explicitly stated the binding nature of the vote, it would effectively have no relevance. Parliament could simply enact a new piece of legislation countermanding the old one.
My reading of what @david_herdson was arguing is that the courts ought to recognise that times have changed since Gladstone and Disraeli were battling it out, and if Parliament legislates for a referendum, the people have a reasonable expectation that the outcome of the referendum must be acted upon. Effectively, the sovereignty of the people should be recognised as superior to that of Parliamentarians, and thus the previously assumed right of Parliament to dismiss the popular verdict if it sees fit should now be consigned to the constitutional dustbin.
Well I agree that had the 2015 Act included a clause stating "if the result is that 'Leave' receives most support then the government shall invoke Article 50 of the TEU; if the result is that 'Remain' receives most support then the government shall not invoke Article 50 of the TEU", then that would have saved a lot of bother.
However, your first paragraph makes my point. Parliament has already been consulted when the Act establishing the referendum was passed and hence, implicitly, it was willing to accept either outcome. As the Crown has prerogative powers in the area in question in this case, the authorisation of the referendum by parliament combined with the referendum result ought to be sufficient to permit the prerogative to be used, whether or not the Act makes the consequence deterministic.
Not even the Government's lawyers tried to make the case that the Referendum Act gave authority in that way - it could have been put in the Act, it was in the past for things such as the AV Referendum, and it was not in this case.
The Government can't go "Oops, we meant to put it in but forgot; let's all act as if we did." If they did, given the briefing paper the Government passed out to all parliamentarians saying that it explicitly did NOT give such authority would probably have scuppered them.
In short - they could have done that, they did in previous ones where it was to be automatic, they didn't in this one and they wrote and distributed a paper to the parliamentarians saying it was advisory only
I'm not arguing that the Act authorised the government; I'm arguing that the referendum did, as an inherent feature of referendums expressing the will of the sovereign people.
The question of whether the referendum was advisory is a side-issue. That would only be pertinent if the question was whether the government was obliged to invoke A50 (which it isn't). The question instead is whether the government can invoke A50 following the referendum result.
That's a total constitutional change, though. We've had referendums before and never argued that they automatically gave the Government any extra constitutional powers. Or extra-constitutional powers, for that matter. It's a massive change in power for any Government. As constitutional changes like that are so important, we'd need to either put it to the people in a General Election or in a referendum (the latter duly passed by Parliament in advance, of course )
God, just think how boring politics would be right now if Remain had won. Dodged a bullet right there.
On remains logic they wouldn't have won
the country would be split 50/50 and a new referendum would be required and a court would adjudicate to say Parliament should decide as the plebs are not grown up enough to make the complicated decisions.....
Mr. Eagles, predictions as accurate as your grasp of history.
The question is, was the referendum a Cannae or an Arbela moment?
I said in a thread I wrote the referendum was Dave's Zama.
But much like Hannibal defeating the Romans in the early part of The Second Punic War, Cameron may have won some battles but ultimately lost the war (to stop the Tories banging on about Europe.)
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
I share the concerns he has about the direction of the Tory party.
chortle
is this the bit where we can play the Cameroon argument in reverse and you get told to fk off and join the LibDems ?
I'm staying, it is much more fun staying in the tent and pissing in. I'm not French and surrending at the first bit of difficulty, I stay on and fight.
My fear is the Tory party is torn asunder, and Brexit is the new Corn Laws.
bullshit
I had it on very good authority ( you ) that post the vote the Tories would come together and all would be sweetness and light
That's assuming Remain won, because many in the Leave camp, like Stephen Phillips, were just playing games.
"Mr Phillips is believed to have pondered crossing the floor and remaining as an independent MP, but as he had been elected to a Conservative Party that he now believes has "UKIP-lite" values, he believed the "honourable course" was to resign.
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
I share the concerns he has about the direction of the Tory party.
chortle
is this the bit where we can play the Cameroon argument in reverse and you get told to fk off and join the LibDems ?
I'm staying, it is much more fun staying in the tent and pissing in. I'm not French and surrending at the first bit of difficulty, I stay on and fight.
My fear is the Tory party is torn asunder, and Brexit is the new Corn Laws.
bullshit
I had it on very good authority ( you ) that post the vote the Tories would come together and all would be sweetness and light
That's assuming Remain won, because many in the Leave camp, like Stephen Phillips, were just playing games.
So the "lying Tory bastards " theory ?
Lying Tory bastards is a tautology.
Why do you think we've been the most ruthlessly efficient and successful political party in history
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.
It shouldn't have been made an advisory referendum then.
If it was "advisory" (which it wasn't) it was advisory to the government not Parliament.
Comments
Clinton 51 .. Trump 40
http://observer.com/2016/11/stockton-new-jersey-poll-clinton-51-trump-40/
http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-court-appeal-final-straw-for-tory-mp-stephen-phillips-10644470
“We emphasise that the Secretary of State’s position on this part of the argument and the observations in the preceding paragraph relate to a pure legal point about the effect in law of the referendum. This court does not question the importance of the referendum as a political event, the significance of which will have to be assessed and taken into account elsewhere…”
FWIW I'm guessing the fall in the value of the € versus the $ at the end of 2014 meant the US and Germany swapped places in terms of absolute value of exports.
https://twitter.com/hapoel4/status/794531253315899392
Clinton 48.5 .. Trump 45.2
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
And 1.7% with RCP.
The difference mainly because RCP fail to include certain polls .... strangely enough with Clinton leads .... Who knew ?!?!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
"This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP," one friend told Sky News.
The "final straw" was the decision by Number 10 to appeal a "clear-cut" High Court judgement to involve Parliament in the decision to trigger Article 50."
However, your first paragraph makes my point. Parliament has already been consulted when the Act establishing the referendum was passed and hence, implicitly, it was willing to accept either outcome. As the Crown has prerogative powers in the area in question in this case, the authorisation of the referendum by parliament combined with the referendum result ought to be sufficient to permit the prerogative to be used, whether or not the Act makes the consequence deterministic.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/03/europe/gina-miller-brexit-article-50/index.html
I'll agree it's an utterly futile argument; Germany's performance is of very little help in assessing the future performance of the UK, in or out of the EU.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37873493
If you want referendums to be binding, then legislate to that effect.
* UK population decides it can no longer stomach inflexible EU rules. Rather than disregard the rules, it votes to leave EU. Cue caterwauling, fury, tantrums, dark threats from amongst the remaining members, but especially Eurofederalist extremists.
* Poland and Hungary go screwing about with their free press and judicial systems, and refuse point blank to swallow migrant quotas. EU institutions raise concerns. Poles and Hungarians tell EU where to stick those concerns. EU does fuck all.
The supreme irony is that it is Britain's very respect for the rules - its own and the EU's alike - which has, arguably, precipitated Brexit. If we had simply finessed our way out of the free movement of people years ago - essentially by declaring that the country could no longer cope and reimposing border controls unilaterally, possibly accompanied by a declaration of a state of emergency - then the surrender of the EU to the central Europeans' intransigence suggests that they would've either issued a toothless rebuke and tolerated the situation, or negotiated a fudge to prevent it from escalating. The sovereignty movement would probably not have won June's referendum without the extra boost from public anger over open borders - and indeed, under these circumstances, Ukip and the Tory right would in all likelihood still be campaigning fruitlessly for a referendum now.
"Lord Justice Sales is a close friend of Tony Blair, the former prime minister who campaigned for Remain and wants a second vote on Britain's EU membership. Lord Thomas co-founded a Europhile legal group. "Telegraph
The Government can't go "Oops, we meant to put it in but forgot; let's all act as if we did." If they did, given the briefing paper the Government passed out to all parliamentarians saying that it explicitly did NOT give such authority would probably have scuppered them.
In short - they could have done that, they did in previous ones where it was to be automatic, they didn't in this one and they wrote and distributed a paper to the parliamentarians saying it was advisory only
Stephen Phillips succeeds David Cameron as Steward & Bailiff of Manor of Northstead - that's office under Crown which enables MPs to quit
Is this because Zac is already doing the Chilterns Hundreds job?
Is there any evidence the background white levels, and sun angle should NOT lead to her skin being that colour ?
I'll have a play around with photoshop this evening to see if I can reproduce what ol' Southie is going on about.
Also, 538.com is showing considerably improved prospects for her with her percentage chance of becoming POTUS having jumped by THREE WHOLE POINTS since yesterday from an all time low of 64.8% to 67.8%, which I view as being quite significant, given the sheer volume of polling which is taking place and the consistency that such an increase would therefore require.
I've done all my betting, for better or worse, but those favouring Hillary but who so far have hesitated, might wish to take another look at the various betting opportunities before the bookies fully latch onto what may prove to be a late trend in her favour, but as ever DYOR!
Lots of middle aged blokes from the same social background doesnt exactly place a strong argument in favour of a balanced judiciary.
People are entitled to say the judiciary is politicised if they want to, surely. Whether right or wrong, free speech says we can say judges are activist if we want to
If the government were trying to somehow 'de-power' the judiciary, that would be a completely different matter. May isn't.
The only person who has called for judicial de-powering is Suzanne Evans. Such a call is completely beyond the pale.
The idea of reporting the reasoning behind the judgment - which is clear and well put together, whether or not you agree with it - seems to be beyond the journalist, who prefers to rely on unfounded innuendo.
Recently the Telegraph's only value has been as toilet paper, its journalism has been so poor. But paper with such lazy and lousy ad hominem attacks (one of which is so flimsy that it is based on someone that the judge is friends with) wouldn't even get to touch my shitty arse.
It's a nice feature for when SM or the like dump a bazillion state polls at once, you can see the net impact at a glance.
is this the bit where we can play the Cameroon argument in reverse and you get told to fk off and join the LibDems ?
The question of whether the referendum was advisory is a side-issue. That would only be pertinent if the question was whether the government was obliged to invoke A50 (which it isn't). The question instead is whether the government can invoke A50 following the referendum result.
Are the Chiltern Hundred going to be vacant if Zac is returned to parliament?
New York authorities have made it known they have been " made aware" of s threat of terrorist attack around time of election.
Someone said one terrorist attack might do it for Trump ....what about a threat?
Newspapers can say whatever they like within the current bounds. That's free speech.
The legal profession is a politicised profession.
My fear is the Tory party is torn asunder, and Brexit is the new Corn Laws.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/
Out of 12 contests, the error in the lead was 7.2 points in one (1980), 3.4 and 3.3 in two more (2000 and 1996), 2.7 in another (2012) and otherwise less than two points.
On the basis of those figures and Clinton's 3.3% lead in the 538 average, a rough estimate of the likelihood of Trump winning the popular vote next week would be 12.5%.
NH - Clinton 48 .. Trump 43
NV - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 41
PA - Clinton 48 .. Trump 44
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
Via PPP twitter
https://twitter.com/ppppolls
Its not like the government is refusing to abide by the judiciary's decisions.
THAT would be impinging upon the independence of the judiciary.
Meeks just wants us to accept the decisions of a highly politicised profession at face value.
I had it on very good authority ( you ) that post the vote the Tories would come together and all would be sweetness and light
Mine it that people mistake Kingdom Asunder for some sort of political commentary.
You might take a different view about LibDem voters.
My reading of what @david_herdson was arguing is that the courts ought to recognise that times have changed since Gladstone and Disraeli were battling it out, and if Parliament legislates for a referendum, the people have a reasonable expectation that the outcome of the referendum must be acted upon. Effectively, the sovereignty of the people should be recognised as superior to that of Parliamentarians, and thus the previously assumed right of Parliament to dismiss the popular verdict if it sees fit should now be consigned to the constitutional dustbin.
Just got a hunch that on Sunday / Monday a final event that crystallises the election result could hit and the previous course of the election suggests it probably won't be favourable to Trump. That timing would be early enough to be taken on board by the electorate and late enough to be difficult to counter.
. Just popped up on a banner in front of me when reading.
Question remains though.
The Sun photo looks to me to be alot lower contrast, "softer" and the light exposure is no change from the original .NEF or cannon file I'd guess.
I'd guess the Times photo has been 'lightroomed' (Noone has used photoshop on either) a good deal more.
Can anyone think of the last time UK politics had been not only this varied in terms of events, unpredictable and eventful?
Ever heard of Phil Shiner mate? Ever heard of Public Interest lawyers?
They are just interested in the law, right?
The question is, was the referendum a Cannae or an Arbela moment?
Last time I backed him he went out, and laid him before that he went in.
Most annoying.
It's a massive change in power for any Government. As constitutional changes like that are so important, we'd need to either put it to the people in a General Election or in a referendum (the latter duly passed by Parliament in advance, of course
the country would be split 50/50 and a new referendum would be required and a court would adjudicate to say Parliament should decide as the plebs are not grown up enough to make the complicated decisions.....
But much like Hannibal defeating the Romans in the early part of The Second Punic War, Cameron may have won some battles but ultimately lost the war (to stop the Tories banging on about Europe.)
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/24/wiping-out-the-lib-dems-might-have-been-camerons-greatest-strategic-mistake-as-pm/
Why do you think we've been the most ruthlessly efficient and successful political party in history
If we stay in or depart in name only, politics will polarise further.