As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.
Probably a less charismatic one, more likely to lose to 5* in 2018
Quite possibly, although 5* is struggling with the mayoralty of Rome.
What Italy needs is for the right (Forza Italia, Lega Nodra, Us with Savlini) to merge, as the current 'bonus' structure really stuffs them.
Raggi in Rome is proving that 5 Star couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery...typical, tawdry populists...all talk.
I think the last thing Italy needs quite frankly RCS is a resurgent right wing. 20 years of Berlusconi changed Italy into a basket case.
Renzi is a Christian Democrat in all but name.....if the PD goes left a la Corbyn if he loses, I could quite easily see him try and create some kind of centre party.
I think that's 15 years of the Euro turned Italy in to a basket case
And it would also be less if those now using the Victorian doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a tool to thwart a democratic decision ...
This whole thing about people trying to thwart Brexit is the biggest straw man I've ever seen.
There's no evidence whatsoever that parliament would vote to block Brexit. All this nonsense is just a desperate attempt to stop parliament having any say at all in what kind of Brexit there's going to be - for reasons that have more to do with political divisions in the governing party than anything else.
Europhilia is not a consistent position for a sovereignty movement. Why would one be simultaneously desperate to escape from a British Union that's busy salami-slicing its authority and passing it over on a plate, and desperate to embrace a European Union which is a centralising engine that rarely, if ever, shows any regard for the principle of subsidiarity. Not to mention the fact that trade barriers between the UK and EU are considered a lethal threat, whereas trade barriers between Scotland in the EU and England out of it are not (even though England is a far more important trading partner for Scotland than the whole of the rest of Europe.)
The official SNP position is a total bloody mess, a complete mass of illogical contradictions. Either sovereignty pooling, for the sake of trade amongst other things, is vital - in which case, the UK single market is more important than anything else and independence is a dead duck. Or sovereignty pooling is undesirable, in which case the position advocated by Jim Sillars - to depart from both Unions and operate as a truly independent state - is the one that makes real sense.
Euroscepticism is the love that dare not speak its name within the Nationalist movement. If that ceases to be the case then there could be real ructions within the SNP - just like there have been amongst English & Welsh Conservatives for the last several decades.
The SNP is a totalitarian, on-message cult..err, no, the other one..a hopelssly divided party on the cusp of schism.
Tricky for all those armchair SNPbad experts keeping on message.
Actually the point is that the SNP is an on-message cult following a message that makes no sense. Its inherent contradictions of being both nationalist and Europhile are blatant to everyone who hasn't drank the kool-aid.
Yeah, well, I think we'll wait and see how the non-conradictory positions of all you English nationalists pan out.
Really, I think this stuff about the government acting illegally by agreeing to EU treaties before parliament has passed the necessary legislation is complete tripe.
Here's a "FactSheet" from 2010 published by the House of Commons Information Office: "All EU treaties require legislation for their implementation in the UK and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Rome is given effect in the UK by the European Communities Act 1972. Any amendment has to be given effect by UK legislation, thus the enlargements of the EC to include Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden required amending Acts of Parliament in Britain." https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
There's nothing new about the court's view. Obviously, the government's agreement to EU treaties has been conditional on Parliament passing the necessary legislation, in just the same way as for a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification.
No it has not. You clearly do not understand the concept of the Royal Prerogative. Until the law was explicitly changed in 2010, it allowed the executive to make treaties with no reference to Parliament. Personally I am glad it has changed. But that does not change the fact that all those treaties could be signed with Parliament having no input. Indeed those treaty areas that we have given up to the EU in terms of making trade deals can still be passed with Parliament having no input. This is, in my opinion, a bad thing.
The point being that that primary legislation in each case did not come until after the treaty had been signed. Heath signed us into the EEC before any legislation had been laid before Parliament. Unless we were then to break our treaty obligations and be forced out of the EEC or EU then in each case Parliament had no real say in the matter it was simply rubber stamping. In fact what is proposed under the Brexit arrangements has far more involvement from Parliament than any of the previous treaties.
The most recent example of course is the CETA treaty with Canada which was signed last week and for which there has been no legislation laid before Parliament.
It's the nature of customs unions to outsourced trade arrangements, and we gave up the need to consent in 1973 in the ECA.
Actually I wasn't using CETA as an example of a trade deal. It will still have to be ratified by Parliament because it is more than a deal just on trade. But the point is that like many other treaties in the past it can be signed before ratification.
And it would also be less if those now using the Victorian doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a tool to thwart a democratic decision ...
This whole thing about people trying to thwart Brexit is the biggest straw man I've ever seen.
There's no evidence whatsoever that parliament would vote to block Brexit. All this nonsense is just a desperate attempt to stop parliament having any say at all in what kind of Brexit there's going to be - for reasons that have more to do with political divisions in the governing party than anything else.
I want Parliament to have their say. I agree with the judges in this case. But don't for a minute try to pretend this is not about trying to stop Brexit because it is. Personally I think it is very likely Parliament will block Brexit and I even think it entirely possible the whole thing is dead as I have no faith in an election changing that result.
I still think it has to be done through Parliament but that doesn't change the fact that this is clearly an attempt by the Eurofanatics to ensure we remain in the EU.
The Sporting ECV spread market has in fact moved further towards Hillary this morning and is currently 298 - 308 which is all the more surprising given that her win probability with 538.com nosedived last night from 68.5% right back to its recent lows of 64.5% ..... a very worrying trend at this late stage of the campaign.
Increasing numbers of Labour supporters getting desperate to push the whole "progressive alliance" agenda. Clutching at straws as they bid to avoid decimation at the next election.
This is a very bad idea. Firstly, a large part of the Labour Party won't accept this, opening up a whole new front in the civil war. Secondly, any attempt at a stitch-up gives the Tories carte blanche to cut a deal with Ukip.
The Tories and Ukip scored a combined 55% of the vote in England in 2015, before the Corbynshambles even got started. The consequences of a full-blown right-wing alliance for the Left would be catastrophic.
Mr. Tyndall, if it does go that way, it makes Nutall's job of unifying UKIP a lot easier, as well as giving him a simple, clear message for the next election.
Regarding the government's appeal, does anyone know if the parties will present new legal arguments or is it purely a review of the original decision? If it's the former then one wild-card could be if the government argues that Article 50 is not irreversible.
Regarding the government's appeal, does anyone know if the parties will present new legal arguments or is it purely a review of the original decision? If it's the former then one wild-card could be if the government argues that Article 50 is not irreversible.
Mr. B, it's akin to a celebrity whose lawyer gets them off a dangerous driving charge due to using a mobile telephone by claiming they were using its dictaphone or calculator function.
Legally, it's in order. Morally, it stinks.
We do agree that Cameron's cocked up just about every part of this referendum.
Mr. kle4, time will tell.
*plays Red Alert theme*
It's rarely wise to ask a question if you're not confident about the answer you'll get.
It is extremely stupid to get involved in other peoples arguments (especially when I am around). Please desist.
Mr. Tyndall, if it does go that way, it makes Nutall's job of unifying UKIP a lot easier, as well as giving him a simple, clear message for the next election.
But I have no interest in UKIP doing well except as a vehicle to get us out of the EU. Once that is achieved they are just another party truing to get power for power's sake. .
Since when has it been unacceptable to criticise judges?
criticism is fine. Calling them 'enemies of the people' and printing their pictures endangers their safety. Threatheing their independence also is out of order.
Mr. B, it's akin to a celebrity whose lawyer gets them off a dangerous driving charge due to using a mobile telephone by claiming they were using its dictaphone or calculator function.
Legally, it's in order. Morally, it stinks.
We do agree that Cameron's cocked up just about every part of this referendum.
Mr. kle4, time will tell.
*plays Red Alert theme*
It's rarely wise to ask a question if you're not confident about the answer you'll get.
It is extremely stupid to get involved in other peoples arguments (especially when I am around). Please desist.
'It is extremely stupid to get involved in other peoples arguments'
Since when has it been unacceptable to criticise judges?
criticism is fine. Calling them 'enemies of the people' and printing their pictures endangers their safety. Threatheing their independence also is out of order.
Haven't you noticed that photos of judges have been appearing in the media for about 100 years? And many people have always detested them and their judgements, so no change there.
As a general rule, any day the government loses in court is a good day. So yesterday was an especially fine day. A delicious one, too, obviously, in as much as the fist-clenched, foot-stamping, whining of so many Brexiteers was so overblown and ludicrous it toppled into hilarity. People who shouted for months about the urgent need to restore parliamentary sovereignty now reacted in horror to the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. ‘That’s not what we meant’, they spluttered. We meant governmental supremacy only when it suits us.
Well, tough. A certain amount of squealing was only to be expected since, if Nigel Farage has taught us anything, it is that the Brexit-minded really don’t like it up ’em. But, still. The reaction to yesterday’s High Court decision throwing responsibility for triggering Article 50 to parliament has been, well, unhinged.
And it would also be less if those now using the Victorian doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a tool to thwart a democratic decision ...
This whole thing about people trying to thwart Brexit is the biggest straw man I've ever seen.
There's no evidence whatsoever that parliament would vote to block Brexit. All this nonsense is just a desperate attempt to stop parliament having any say at all in what kind of Brexit there's going to be - for reasons that have more to do with political divisions in the governing party than anything else.
I want Parliament to have their say. I agree with the judges in this case. But don't for a minute try to pretend this is not about trying to stop Brexit because it is. Personally I think it is very likely Parliament will block Brexit and I even think it entirely possible the whole thing is dead as I have no faith in an election changing that result.
I still think it has to be done through Parliament but that doesn't change the fact that this is clearly an attempt by the Eurofanatics to ensure we remain in the EU.
I agree with you on all points in this post.
From this point of view, the hoo-hah over the legal decision may be valuable in reminding MPs and electorate alike that there are still a lot of people who do want to leave the EU.
On so many issues, the hall-mark of the EU since Common Market days has been the progression from telling us "You've got it wrong, it doesn't mean that at all" to the final "well, sorry, it's all been agreed now, there's nothing you can do about it".
Like so many, I'll believe we're leaving when we've left. But I am very curious as to how the EU would deal with it if the politicians did ignore/reverse the referendum vote. I hope we don't have to find out.
''I'm starting to wonder which aspect of the constitution is going to be next in the firing line for the extreme Brexiteers. ''
To paraphrase to the best thing ever written on Brexit, by Cameron's old tutor Bogdanor.
1. The arguments and tactics being used to frustrate Brexit are the same as those used to frustrate the extension of the franchise in 1832.
2. If Brexit is not implemented, the people voting for it might very well conclude the system of government they have does not serve them.
Under those circumstances, is it any wonder there is an outcry against our institutions. The only surprise is it is not greater.
Most people believe Brexit will happen and that the debate has moved on to the terms of our exit.
All the guff the Mail etc comes out with about Brexit being blocked has the sole purpose of making sure the baying mobs still keep their pitchforks handy. As far as the Mail is concerned any means justify the ends - vicious personal attacks on anyone or anything that crosses them politically. They are playing a dangerous game but of course the Mail is no stranger to that scenario.
As I've mentioned before, the cost of the EGIP railway electrification scheme has skyrocketed over the last year, mostly due to new EU legislation. It seems to be a fubar by the government and Network Rail.
TL;DR: you need clearances between the high-voltage cables and surrounding objects. Due to our restricted loading gauge compared to Europe, over the years we have come up with out own acceptable, lower, limits, which have generally proved to be safe. Only we have now slipped into the EU's legislation that requires much largest gaps. This means many more bridges, tunnels and other structures need altering than was planned.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
And it would also be less if those now using the Victorian doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a tool to thwart a democratic decision ...
This whole thing about people trying to thwart Brexit is the biggest straw man I've ever seen.
There's no evidence whatsoever that parliament would vote to block Brexit. All this nonsense is just a desperate attempt to stop parliament having any say at all in what kind of Brexit there's going to be - for reasons that have more to do with political divisions in the governing party than anything else.
I want Parliament to have their say. I agree with the judges in this case. But don't for a minute try to pretend this is not about trying to stop Brexit because it is. Personally I think it is very likely Parliament will block Brexit and I even think it entirely possible the whole thing is dead as I have no faith in an election changing that result.
I still think it has to be done through Parliament but that doesn't change the fact that this is clearly an attempt by the Eurofanatics to ensure we remain in the EU.
I don't think that Parliament will directly vote down the exercise of A50. What I do expect is for the Lords to pass one wrecking amendment after another.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
The Press can say what they like, and the Judges can ignore them. The government should not get involved.
Many people who have a Black British West Indies family background on both sides consider themselves British but not especially English.
What does a born or naturalised British person whose home is in England and who is from a black Jamaican or Nigerian background call themselves if they emigrate across the Atlantic and become a US citizen? English-American, British-American, or African-American? And what do they get pigeonholed as by other people?
Mr. B, it's akin to a celebrity whose lawyer gets them off a dangerous driving charge due to using a mobile telephone by claiming they were using its dictaphone or calculator function.
Legally, it's in order. Morally, it stinks.
We do agree that Cameron's cocked up just about every part of this referendum.
Mr. kle4, time will tell.
*plays Red Alert theme*
It's rarely wise to ask a question if you're not confident about the answer you'll get.
It is extremely stupid to get involved in other peoples arguments (especially when I am around). Please desist.
'It is extremely stupid to get involved in other peoples arguments'
Stupid, eh?
Yes, I get it. So you agree or just are a wannabe [MODERATED]?
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
The Press can say what they like, and the Judges can ignore them. The government should not get involved.
The government are involved they are the ones who have been judged to break Parliamentary Law .
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
The Press can say what they like, and the Judges can ignore them. The government should not get involved.
The government are involved they are the ones who have been judged to break Parliamentary Law .
No they're not, no law has been broken. They've been judged not to have the constitutional power to do what they wanted to but since they'd not done it yet no law has been broken.
Only if A50 had already been invoked (as Cameron had pledged to do the day after a vote) could the law have been broken.
Really, I think this stuff about the government acting illegally by agreeing to EU treaties before parliament has passed the necessary legislation is complete tripe.
Here's a "FactSheet" from 2010 published by the House of Commons Information Office: "All EU treaties require legislation for their implementation in the UK and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Rome is given effect in the UK by the European Communities Act 1972. Any amendment has to be given effect by UK legislation, thus the enlargements of the EC to include Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden required amending Acts of Parliament in Britain." https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
There's nothing new about the court's view. Obviously, the government's agreement to EU treaties has been conditional on Parliament passing the necessary legislation, in just the same way as for a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification.
No it has not. You clearly do not understand the concept of the Royal Prerogative. Until the law was explicitly changed in 2010, it allowed the executive to make treaties with no reference to Parliament.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
The Press can say what they like, and the Judges can ignore them. The government should not get involved.
Basically. – This is a media battle, not the Governments and if the PM did intervene it would be spun as curtailing free speech and media intrusion. – Let them make their own beds etc.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
The Press can say what they like, and the Judges can ignore them. The government should not get involved.
The government are involved they are the ones who have been judged to break Parliamentary Law .
No they're not, no law has been broken. They've been judged not to have the constitutional power to do what they wanted to but since they'd not done it yet no law has been broken.
Only if A50 had already been invoked (as Cameron had pledged to do the day after a vote) could the law have been broken.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
I read this morning that Mr Mak (mp) was our first Chinese-ethnic member within Westminister's Lower-house. [t'Economist] Some effnicks are treated differently because apparently - '...the squeakiest need more oil[sic]....'
Let us hope we in England do not follow some of the extremes!
Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
The Press can say what they like, and the Judges can ignore them. The government should not get involved.
The government are involved they are the ones who have been judged to break Parliamentary Law .
What is Parliamentary Law. Genuinely interested as I've never heard the phrase used (particularly with capitalisation implying it's a defined term) and I've quite a lot of PQE. May be because I work in a different market of course.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard. The ruling may well be a legal decision but the optics to the many is dreadful as it is clear that so many have been quite transparent that they want to vote the referendum down and this is the vehicle that they will use.
It is a very dangerous game and I am hearing from many on both sides who are extremely uneasy at the prospect of political mayhem and that TM should just serve A50 and get on with it
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about. We cannot even start down that road until A50 is enacted though.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard. The ruling may well be a legal decision but the optics to the many is dreadful as it is clear that so many have been quite transparent that they want to vote the referendum down and this is the vehicle that they will use.
It is a very dangerous game and I am hearing from many on both sides who are extremely uneasy at the prospect of political mayhem and that TM should just serve A50 and get on with it
Yes it's quite dangerous. What we need is a Fuehrer who can directly translate the will of the people into action!
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 20m20 minutes ago Frank Luntz Retweeted Jon Ralston A 72,000-ballot lead in Clark County, Nevada is about a +13.7% margin.
That will need a miraculous turnout for GOP to overcome on Tuesday.
Do tell me how you can count ballots before the completion of polling and still call it a Democratic election free from corruption and fraud?
Another way of looking at it is that the Democrats had a 9.6% lead in week 1 and a 7.2% lead in week 2 in 2012 - this year their lead is 9% in week 1 and 5.3% in week 2.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
Stick freedom of movement on a ballot paper ?
I'm just trying to make sense of the stuff about the "little people". I mean, someone else has almost immediately told me that it's through parliament that the little people will make themselves heard ... !
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
And when is that going to be?
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
The serving of A50 has to take place without obstruction. We voted to leave the EU and that means leaving their jurisdiction. Anything less will be a betrayal.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
The Press can say what they like, and the Judges can ignore them. The government should not get involved.
The government are involved they are the ones who have been judged to break Parliamentary Law .
No they're not, no law has been broken. They've been judged not to have the constitutional power to do what they wanted to but since they'd not done it yet no law has been broken.
Only if A50 had already been invoked (as Cameron had pledged to do the day after a vote) could the law have been broken.
Oh I see so in your world , planning a bank robbery or murder are not crimes if you dont carry them out .
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
And when is that going to be?
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
The serving of A50 has to take place without obstruction. We voted to leave the EU and that means leaving their jurisdiction. Anything less will be a betrayal.
No second referendum under any circumstances
You forgot to answer my question about the little people.
We voted to leave the EU and that means leaving their jurisdiction.
Well some people had the courage of their convictions at least. You can't make up for voting Remain with rage and fury against British constitutional processes after the vote.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
And when is that going to be?
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
What, when the negotiations have finished?
They will be finished if accepted by parliament. Otherwise not.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
The serving of A50 has to take place without obstruction. We voted to leave the EU and that means leaving their jurisdiction. Anything less will be a betrayal.
No second referendum under any circumstances
You forgot to answer my question about the little people.
I accept that the HOC should have a vote at the end of the process (not a second referendum) and I believe David Davis has already confirmed this will take place
You're forgetting that if we don't accept what's negotiated, it will be Hard Brexit anyway after two years. It doesn't sound as though the little people (through parliament) are going to be offered much of a choice.
Wouldn't it be better if parliament could have some input into the process before it's too late, rather than after?
And it would also be less if those now using the Victorian doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a tool to thwart a democratic decision ...
This whole thing about people trying to thwart Brexit is the biggest straw man I've ever seen.
There's no evidence whatsoever that parliament would vote to block Brexit. All this nonsense is just a desperate attempt to stop parliament having any say at all in what kind of Brexit there's going to be - for reasons that have more to do with political divisions in the governing party than anything else.
I want Parliament to have their say. I agree with the judges in this case. But don't for a minute try to pretend this is not about trying to stop Brexit because it is. Personally I think it is very likely Parliament will block Brexit and I even think it entirely possible the whole thing is dead as I have no faith in an election changing that result.
I still think it has to be done through Parliament but that doesn't change the fact that this is clearly an attempt by the Eurofanatics to ensure we remain in the EU.
Absolutely. Does anyone really think that the ultra-Remainers, from Meeks and williamglen on here, to Gina Miller, to Blair and Farron and Ken Clarke and the entire Guardian and BBC, would refuse a chance to reverse the referendum, if they were offered some spurious, quasi-legal justification?
They'd seize the opportunity with relish. They'd explain away their actions, to themselves and others, with specious guff about unwritten constitutions and advisory votes. And Brexit would be abandoned.
This is what thousands, maybe millions of Brits WANT to happen. Stop Brexit by fair means or foul. And they are entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't make what they are desiring to do morally right. It's not. It's wrong.
quite.
if remain had one by one vote we'd be getting posts on "that's democracy" and a clear mandate to stay
Really, I think this stuff about the government acting illegally by agreeing to EU treaties before parliament has passed the necessary legislation is complete tripe.
Here's a "FactSheet" from 2010 published by the House of Commons Information Office: "All EU treaties require legislation for their implementation in the UK and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Rome is given effect in the UK by the European Communities Act 1972. Any amendment has to be given effect by UK legislation, thus the enlargements of the EC to include Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden required amending Acts of Parliament in Britain." https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
There's nothing new about the court's view. Obviously, the government's agreement to EU treaties has been conditional on Parliament passing the necessary legislation, in just the same way as for a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification.
No it has not. You clearly do not understand the concept of the Royal Prerogative. Until the law was explicitly changed in 2010, it allowed the executive to make treaties with no reference to Parliament.
Judicial independence isn't threatened by a headline. It's threatened by government actions.
Or inactions in the face of wholesale (and misguided) questioning of judicial legitimacy. Questioning the correctness of a decision is one thing; attacking those that made the decision quite another. Unless Truss genuinely believes our Supreme Court to be biased and partial in its decision making (in which case she ought to be undertaking a wholly different set of actions), then it is incumbent upon her to defend the judiciary. At the moment she is an empty set of robes.
Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
And when is that going to be?
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
What, when the negotiations have finished?
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.
Since when has it been unacceptable to criticise judges?
I've no problems with the Mail making an ass of itself (which is not unusual). What's unacceptable is for the Lord Chancellor not to defend judges when they are attacked in this manner. Which is what the Bar Council is demanding.
Comments
There's no evidence whatsoever that parliament would vote to block Brexit. All this nonsense is just a desperate attempt to stop parliament having any say at all in what kind of Brexit there's going to be - for reasons that have more to do with political divisions in the governing party than anything else.
Like Monty Python's Sir Robin, bravely running away.
Except I wouldn't much fancy Corbyn's chances against the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
I still think it has to be done through Parliament but that doesn't change the fact that this is clearly an attempt by the Eurofanatics to ensure we remain in the EU.
https://youtu.be/WVpSksvTea8
Increasing numbers of Labour supporters getting desperate to push the whole "progressive alliance" agenda. Clutching at straws as they bid to avoid decimation at the next election.
This is a very bad idea. Firstly, a large part of the Labour Party won't accept this, opening up a whole new front in the civil war. Secondly, any attempt at a stitch-up gives the Tories carte blanche to cut a deal with Ukip.
The Tories and Ukip scored a combined 55% of the vote in England in 2015, before the Corbynshambles even got started. The consequences of a full-blown right-wing alliance for the Left would be catastrophic.
.
Stupid, eh?
Well, tough. A certain amount of squealing was only to be expected since, if Nigel Farage has taught us anything, it is that the Brexit-minded really don’t like it up ’em. But, still. The reaction to yesterday’s High Court decision throwing responsibility for triggering Article 50 to parliament has been, well, unhinged.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/unhinged-backlash-high-courts-brexit-ruling/
From this point of view, the hoo-hah over the legal decision may be valuable in reminding MPs and electorate alike that there are still a lot of people who do want to leave the EU.
On so many issues, the hall-mark of the EU since Common Market days has been the progression from telling us "You've got it wrong, it doesn't mean that at all" to the final "well, sorry, it's all been agreed now, there's nothing you can do about it".
Like so many, I'll believe we're leaving when we've left. But I am very curious as to how the EU would deal with it if the politicians did ignore/reverse the referendum vote. I hope we don't have to find out.
(And good afternoon, everyone.)
All the guff the Mail etc comes out with about Brexit being blocked has the sole purpose of making sure the baying mobs still keep their pitchforks handy. As far as the Mail is concerned any means justify the ends - vicious personal attacks on anyone or anything that crosses them politically. They are playing a dangerous game but of course the Mail is no stranger to that scenario.
Podesta and Hillary do have some strange friends and leisure activities.
Wikileaks
RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 31 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails31 #HillaryClinton #imWithHer https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm https://t.co/nTBT5I3YZk
As I've mentioned before, the cost of the EGIP railway electrification scheme has skyrocketed over the last year, mostly due to new EU legislation. It seems to be a fubar by the government and Network Rail.
Roger Ford has written an interesting text on it (read from 'Mindless regulation threatens electrification' onwards).
http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2016.10.24.05.00.archive.txt
TL;DR: you need clearances between the high-voltage cables and surrounding objects. Due to our restricted loading gauge compared to Europe, over the years we have come up with out own acceptable, lower, limits, which have generally proved to be safe. Only we have now slipped into the EU's legislation that requires much largest gaps. This means many more bridges, tunnels and other structures need altering than was planned.
Ooops!
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
Many people who have a Black British West Indies family background on both sides consider themselves British but not especially English.
What does a born or naturalised British person whose home is in England and who is from a black Jamaican or Nigerian background call themselves if they emigrate across the Atlantic and become a US citizen? English-American, British-American, or African-American? And what do they get pigeonholed as by other people?
Oh...
Only if A50 had already been invoked (as Cameron had pledged to do the day after a vote) could the law have been broken.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
I think its fair to say that he has a mountain to climb to get it
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/794890443335106560
I read this morning that Mr Mak (mp) was our first Chinese-ethnic member within Westminister's Lower-house. [t'Economist] Some effnicks are treated differently because apparently - '...the squeakiest need more oil[sic]....'
Let us hope we in England do not follow some of the extremes!
Frank Luntz Retweeted Jon Ralston
A 72,000-ballot lead in Clark County, Nevada is about a +13.7% margin.
That will need a miraculous turnout for GOP to overcome on Tuesday.
It is a very dangerous game and I am hearing from many on both sides who are extremely uneasy at the prospect of political mayhem and that TM should just serve A50 and get on with it
It is incumbent on the Lord Chancellor to confirm as a politician that the judiciary are independent. The papers are neither here nor there.
Well, it's a view, but not a wise one.
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about. We cannot even start down that road until A50 is enacted though.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
No second referendum under any circumstances
They will be finished if accepted by parliament. Otherwise not.
Some of the-old-boys need to come back. If only for sanity!!!
Wouldn't it be better if parliament could have some input into the process before it's too late, rather than after?
https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/794882232246816768
if remain had one by one vote we'd be getting posts on "that's democracy" and a clear mandate to stay
In 2012: 45052 +7810 = 52862 Democrats
In 2012: 44405 + 9337 = 53742 Republicans (Week 1 + Week 2 combined)
In 2016: 26576+3566+25260+2550 = 57952 Dmocrats
In 2016: 23430+4220+26574+2728 = 56952 Republicans
So that looks good for Clinton
(There seems to have been a major reduction in postal voting in Nevada - 8000 fewer postal votes in week 2 than last time and 11000 fewer in week 1)
Questioning the correctness of a decision is one thing; attacking those that made the decision quite another.
Unless Truss genuinely believes our Supreme Court to be biased and partial in its decision making (in which case she ought to be undertaking a wholly different set of actions), then it is incumbent upon her to defend the judiciary. At the moment she is an empty set of robes.
new thread
What's unacceptable is for the Lord Chancellor not to defend judges when they are attacked in this manner. Which is what the Bar Council is demanding.