Mr. Glenn, the electorate voted to leave the EU. At what point will the political class realise they can have democracy, or ignore the referendum, but not both?
FPT - The front page of the Express, Mail, Telegraph, and Sun would be something to behold if Sinn Fein blocked Brexit.
Oh my, Mrs May's majority is getting even smaller
At what point will the Brexit mob realise that they can have Brexit or they can have Britain, but not both?
TINA
but of course there always is, you just lack imagination and ambition
No, I lack the will. Brexit isn't my lookout.
Of course, but just because you have a monoscopic outlook on life doesnt mean everyone else has. That's one of the joys of this country and Europe, we have lots of variety.
FPT - The front page of the Express, Mail, Telegraph, and Sun would be something to behold if Sinn Fein blocked Brexit.
Oh my, Mrs May's majority is getting even smaller
At what point will the Brexit mob realise that they can have Brexit or they can have Britain, but not both?
Sinn Fein coming to Parliament to defeat the Brexit vote would be just awesome. Win or lose they would taint the Europhiles forever and the result would be a GE where we could rightly say that the anti-Brexit crowd only won because of the support of terrorists. The Brexit campaign would have a field day.
The Brexit vote is never going to come down to 4 votes making the difference.
Where SF really could make a difference is in stopping the boundary changes. If they show up for that, then I think the boundary changes are almost certainly defeated.
I don't know why governments even bother to say they are confident of winning appeals to legal rulings. They could well win and be rightly confident of that, but obviously they're always confident of winning in the first place too.
The Brexit vote is never going to come down to 4 votes making the difference.
Where SF really could make a difference is in stopping the boundary changes. If they show up for that, then I think the boundary changes are almost certainly defeated.
The first draft of the boundary changes in NI are good for SF
The Brexit vote is never going to come down to 4 votes making the difference.
Where SF really could make a difference is in stopping the boundary changes. If they show up for that, then I think the boundary changes are almost certainly defeated.
The first draft of the boundary changes in NI are good for SF
Fair point - had forgotten that - they could well vote for them if they turned up.
I don't why governments even bother to say they are confident of winning appeals to legal rulings. They could well win and be rightly confident of that, but obviously they're always confident of winning in the first place too.
Assume just buying time and closing down the alternatives for now and providing thinking space on their next step if the verdict goes against them.
I do wonder just what the print media will do or say if they block A50 again. Today's headlines were so over the top but judging from twitter and the broadcast media they hit a very large amount of agreement
I don't know why governments even bother to say they are confident of winning appeals to legal rulings. They could well win and be rightly confident of that, but obviously they're always confident of winning in the first place too.
Probably the same reason any side ever does. Hardly much point saying "we think we'll lose but who knows why not just try our luck and see?"
FPT - The front page of the Express, Mail, Telegraph, and Sun would be something to behold if Sinn Fein blocked Brexit.
Oh my, Mrs May's majority is getting even smaller
At what point will the Brexit mob realise that they can have Brexit or they can have Britain, but not both?
Why? Are any bits of Britain necessarily going anywhere because of all of this? As I think we all gather, there are some pretty huge obstacles to either Scotland or Northern Ireland going their own way.
That much said, if it comes down to a choice between the UK as either a state within a federal EU or one of its protectorates, or England (or an Anglo-Welsh Britain) outside of it, then I vote for the latter. Every time.
(((Subodh Chandra))) 44m (((Subodh Chandra))) @SubodhChandra BREAKING: US Judge Gwin is granting a temporary-restraining order against @realDonaldTrump campaign to forbid voter-intimidation! @OHDems
I don't why governments even bother to say they are confident of winning appeals to legal rulings. They could well win and be rightly confident of that, but obviously they're always confident of winning in the first place too.
Assume just buying time and closing down the alternatives for now and providing thinking space on their next step if the verdict goes against them.
I do wonder just what the print media will do or say if they block A50 again. Today's headlines were so over the top but judging from twitter and the broadcast media they hit a very large amount of agreement
It was pretty ridiculous, but I guess it hits a nerve for many that Brexit might be taken away, even though that is not what the legal judgement was about at all, regardless of what the claimants hope to inspire.
Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.
Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.
"If leader ratings are indeed a good guide to electoral outcomes then Clinton should do it on Tuesday"
Here's hoping you're right Mike, for my sake as much as yours!
A dull election, with only three states changing hands. OH, IA, NC. HC wins 323 - 215.
This is my view, for the moment.
I'm staying with 308 - 229 -1 for now and *gulp* just about a break even on my spread-betting. Hopefully a few tidy pick-ups on some single state betting, like your very tasty suggestion yesterday in relation to Utah which looked like the easiest money over the entire campaign.
Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.
Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.
It's looking fun atm
Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters
Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW
As an aside my wife and I moved in the same social circles as Gordon Anglesea who has been convicted today at the age of 79 to 12 years for abusing children in North Wales.
He was in Round Table, Rotary, Freemasons and a lay preacher as well as a Chief Superintendent of Police.
It is just awful to realise he was performing these disgusting acts while socialising with us and has upset us greatly
"If leader ratings are indeed a good guide to electoral outcomes then Clinton should do it on Tuesday"
Here's hoping you're right Mike, for my sake as much as yours!
A dull election, with only three states changing hands. OH, IA, NC. HC wins 323 - 215.
This is my view, for the moment.
I'm staying with 308 - 229 -1 for now and *gulp* just about a break even on my spread-betting. Hopefully a few tidy pick-ups on some single state betting, like your very tasty suggestion yesterday in relation to Utah which looked like the easiest money over the entire campaign.
Yep I have to say I think it is my favourite "straight up" bet of the election, rather than any more errm nefarious stuff
I await my 1-70 on Maryland and California to arrive with enough profit for about 4 pints of beer too.
As an aside my wife and I moved in the same social circles as Gordon Anglesea who has been convicted today at the age of 79 to 12 years for abusing children in North Wales.
He was in Round Table, Rotary, Freemasons and a lay preacher as well as a Chief Superintendent of Police.
It is just awful to realise he was performing these disgusting acts while socialising with us and has upset us greatly
A schoolfriend of mine had marks - old scars - on his back. This was in 1990/1 period. When asked what they were, he replied they were where his father had hit him with a poker and other objects when he was a child.
Having met his father, and knowing a fair bit about the family, I could believe it.
Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.
Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.
It's looking fun atm
Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters
Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW
Could be one of those times of change coming up
Has Starmer announced today that labour support leaving the single market as rumoured as that would be a huge move and open the way to them agreeing to restrict free movement of labour
Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.
Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.
It's looking fun atm
Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters
Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW
Could be one of those times of change coming up
Has Starmer announced today that labour support leaving the single market as rumoured as that would be a huge move and open the way to them agreeing to restrict free movement of labour
"If leader ratings are indeed a good guide to electoral outcomes then Clinton should do it on Tuesday"
Here's hoping you're right Mike, for my sake as much as yours!
A dull election, with only three states changing hands. OH, IA, NC. HC wins 323 - 215.
This is my view, for the moment.
I'm staying with 308 - 229 -1 for now and *gulp* just about a break even on my spread-betting. Hopefully a few tidy pick-ups on some single state betting, like your very tasty suggestion yesterday in relation to Utah which looked like the easiest money over the entire campaign.
I got Hillary at 295 this morning which I think's a good bet. Earlier I had her at 302. That's the limit of my exposure though I picked up nice little pot with SPIN on the LD vote share at Witney.
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
Mr. NorthWales, I know (to an extent) what you mean.
I saw some time ago that a school friend of mine had been convicted of multiple sexual assaults/rape. That was a rather odd feeling.
I see what you mean....I found it a bit odd when my inspirational teacher at school was collared as a kiddie fiddler...Fred Talbot; but even stranger, is my old Latin class mate, a very shy and pasty, looking lad from Timperley, from a humble background, wouldn't say boo to a goose is now chairing the 1922 committee...
Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.
Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.
It's looking fun atm
Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters
Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW
Could be one of those times of change coming up
Has Starmer announced today that labour support leaving the single market as rumoured as that would be a huge move and open the way to them agreeing to restrict free movement of labour
let's see him get that past the activists
He is labour's Brexit Sec and if he has said this today it is amazing volte face
Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.
Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.
It's looking fun atm
Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters
Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW
Could be one of those times of change coming up
Has Starmer announced today that labour support leaving the single market as rumoured as that would be a huge move and open the way to them agreeing to restrict free movement of labour
let's see him get that past the activists
The Corbyn-leaning membership, along with a large cohort of No Borders, universalist Labour MPs, will go apeshit over racist, xenophobic border controls. And who knows, perhaps Labour will split into idiot and halfway sensible factions after all...?
This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.
If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
can we have a second vote on uni fees ?
Labour's leader in the House of Lords dismissed the Lib Dems as the party of 8 MP's and that labour will not support a second referendum in the HOL
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
can we have a second vote on uni fees ?
Labour's leader in the House of Lords dismissed the Lib Dems as the party of 8 MP's and that labour will not support a second referendum in the HOL
This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.
If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.
Who the heck is in charge of law for the government, they seem to be making a proper pig's ear of stuff. My other half was utterly convinced the Gov't was going to lose (She knows her constitutional law) - I'll suggest she starts charging the Gov't for her advice.
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
can we have a second vote on uni fees ?
Labour's leader in the House of Lords dismissed the Lib Dems as the party of 8 MP's and that labour will not support a second referendum in the HOL
on those who think LDs will get nowhere supporting EU membership, can I remind you that polls put LDs nationally on around 8% and 48% voted to remain. And no-one else appears to be fishing in those waters, in England at least.
And as for other events this week, well, 2016 continues to be a funny old year.
This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.
If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
can we have a second vote on uni fees ?
Labour's leader in the House of Lords dismissed the Lib Dems as the party of 8 MP's and that labour will not support a second referendum in the HOL
Cleggy's on a suicide mission
Indeed, his attempt to force May to keep full membership of the single market regardless with potentially no controls on free movement is a non-starter as far as the PM is concerned and would inevitably produce a general election
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
FFS another BBC report crow barring Fabic nightclub into a story...they are totally obsessed by the fact it got closed down for repeated serious issues with drugs. I can only presume it was the favourite venue for bbc employees.
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
Playing follow the leader? UKIP waited a long time and then won.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.
If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
So the learn'd justices were not Europhiles after all
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
William Hague claimed that he'd looked through ALL the legal stuff after Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty, maybe he's not at good at law as he thinks he is !
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
So the learn'd justices were not Europhiles after all
Meet the Law. The law of unintended consequences...
on those who think LDs will get nowhere supporting EU membership, can I remind you that polls put LDs nationally on around 8% and 48% voted to remain. And no-one else appears to be fishing in those waters, in England at least.
And Leave polled 52%, but that doesn't indicate the theoretical extent of backing for Ukip.
I would contend that militancy about the EU vote, one way or the other, is not a characteristic of the majority of the electorate - and that, insofar as it is, there are many more people who loathe the EU than love it. If Ukip bumps around the low to mid teens in the polls, then a position of 8% for the Lib Dems doesn't look so very far from what one might expect if they really are going to major as the anti-Ukip going forward.
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
can we have a second vote on uni fees ?
Labour's leader in the House of Lords dismissed the Lib Dems as the party of 8 MP's and that labour will not support a second referendum in the HOL
Well, we shall soon see. The Labour leadership doesn't always display a secure grip on its Parliamentarians...
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.
If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
Comments
Oh my, Mrs May's majority is getting even smaller
https://twitter.com/BelTel/status/794562158692564993
After all, we can name a few congressmen and senators who do, and will.
If Sinn Fein swear the oath to Liz, then I reckon the Orange Order will have a parade
the OO are a very progressive organisation, they may ask Marty to join
Here's hoping you're right Mike, for my sake as much as yours!
but of course there always is, you just lack imagination and ambition
Walking away from the crap he's left all over the floor.
This is my view, for the moment.
Vive La Difference
Where SF really could make a difference is in stopping the boundary changes. If they show up for that, then I think the boundary changes are almost certainly defeated.
Clinton leading in all of WI, PA, NH, NC and NV.
Enough to push her 538 win % up by over 1%.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/
Clinton 44 .. Trump 39
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/page/president_poll_daily_tracker.html#incart_std
I do wonder just what the print media will do or say if they block A50 again. Today's headlines were so over the top but judging from twitter and the broadcast media they hit a very large amount of agreement
That much said, if it comes down to a choice between the UK as either a state within a federal EU or one of its protectorates, or England (or an Anglo-Welsh Britain) outside of it, then I vote for the latter. Every time.
It's a question of priorities.
Who's in charge of staffing up the Whitehouse if Trump wins?
(((Subodh Chandra)))
44m
(((Subodh Chandra))) @SubodhChandra
BREAKING: US Judge Gwin is granting a temporary-restraining order against @realDonaldTrump campaign to forbid voter-intimidation! @OHDems
Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.
Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters
Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW
Could be one of those times of change coming up
He was in Round Table, Rotary, Freemasons and a lay preacher as well as a Chief Superintendent of Police.
It is just awful to realise he was performing these disgusting acts while socialising with us and has upset us greatly
I await my 1-70 on Maryland and California to arrive with enough profit for about 4 pints of beer too.
And the 1-50 on DC
Having met his father, and knowing a fair bit about the family, I could believe it.
His father was a JP.
I saw some time ago that a school friend of mine had been convicted of multiple sexual assaults/rape. That was a rather odd feeling.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=2718290
Murray will be world number 1 if he reaches the final in Paris
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
http://order-order.com/2016/11/04/sadiqs-night-czars-foul-mouthed-tory-scum-tweets/
And Jack W....Murray looks to get a good run as Numero Uno too once he gets there. He's not protecting many points in the front half of next year.....
If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.
My other half was utterly convinced the Gov't was going to lose (She knows her constitutional law) - I'll suggest she starts charging the Gov't for her advice.
I know someone who was in the same class at school as a certain Harold Shipman, who he described as totally unremarkable in every way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37872501
And as for other events this week, well, 2016 continues to be a funny old year.
https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/
Ooooh... CETA: still not a done deal?
http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access
Not even on the ballot everywhere (And where she is write in, you can forget her getting more than about a thousand votes)
'He recognises that confronting Russian President Vladimir Putin may not be that bright and says he will talk to anyone. Indeed, he went to Mexico and met the premier there. Oh, and I nearly forgot, he actually likes the United Kingdom, not a charge that could be levelled at Obama or Clinton. '
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/nigel-farage-donald-trump-is-not-perfect-but-he-is-the-agent-of-change-that-we-need-a3387151.html
https://lockerdome.com/6301731373984833/9232912470165780
Meet the Law. The law of unintended consequences...
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/exaustralian-prime-minister-john-howard-on-why-we-should-make-the-most-of-brexit-a3387201.html
I would contend that militancy about the EU vote, one way or the other, is not a characteristic of the majority of the electorate - and that, insofar as it is, there are many more people who loathe the EU than love it. If Ukip bumps around the low to mid teens in the polls, then a position of 8% for the Lib Dems doesn't look so very far from what one might expect if they really are going to major as the anti-Ukip going forward.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.