The truth about why an Italian - or indeed Russian - airline might register planes overseas seems to be rather more complicated, an interesting fairly short read:
Mr. Cocque, I'm not so sure. When I met Mr. Eagles, his dress sense clearly indicated a man unfamiliar with the human concept of fashion, and quite possibly possessing eyes incapable of registering the light frequency range homo sapiens can see.
I always thought TSE was very proud of his dress sense, especially in the footwear department.
Honestly, if you read her twitter profile, how about reading the piece itself.
Trouble is "Scott and Paste" posts so many "Tweets" that most people just vaguely look at the tweet and then carry on scrolling through the rest of the day's posts.
Only reason I asked about Ms/Mrs Hannah is because that particular copy/paste tweet seemed to be generating such comment...
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
Anyway, IANAL, but some of you guys are. What's your feeling on whether the government's appeal will be successful?
It is hard to see how it can succeed, unless they have the photos and recordings of the Supreme Court judges neatly filed away.
The mystery is why May is apparently so confident of her prospects. Possible answers:
A) it is all part of her cunning plan manoeuvring towards a 2017 general election B )the government has as yet no clue what it is doing and needs to play for more time C) the law is a fruit machine; pull the handle again and there's always some chance of getting three lemons D) the Supreme Court is somehow in her pocket as above
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
It is you Leavers who need the anti-psychotics . Having maintained that it wasn't your closet xenophobia that was driving your desire to Leave but upholding the sovereignity of Parliament you now attack judges who are doing just that . What a bunch of toerag hypocrites you are .
Anyway, IANAL, but some of you guys are. What's your feeling on whether the government's appeal will be successful?
Probably not, but one never knows. The first instance judgement is well-reasoned, but some well-reasoned judgements get overturned.
But, certainly the Supreme Court needs to rule on a case of such importance, and has to spell out what Parliament must do to trigger A 50, in the event that the High Court judgement is upheld.
Anyway, IANAL, but some of you guys are. What's your feeling on whether the government's appeal will be successful?
It is hard to see how it can succeed, unless they have the photos and recordings of the Supreme Court judges neatly filed away.
The mystery is why May is apparently so confident of her prospects. Possible answers:
A) it is all part of her cunning plan manourvering towards a 2017 general election B )the government has as yet no clue what it is doing and needs to play for more time C) the law is a fruit machine; pull the handle again and there's always some chance of three lemons D) the Supreme Court is somehow in her pocket as above
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
Their dream of a USE is dying. They can't handle it. Which is why some of the more pragmatic remainers seem to have adjusted a lot better.
Anyway, IANAL, but some of you guys are. What's your feeling on whether the government's appeal will be successful?
It is hard to see how it can succeed, unless they have the photos and recordings of the Supreme Court judges neatly filed away.
The mystery is why May is apparently so confident of her prospects. Possible answers:
A) it is all part of her cunning plan manourvering towards a 2017 general election B )the government has as yet no clue what it is doing and needs to play for more time C) the law is a fruit machine; pull the handle again and there's always some chance of three lemons D) the Supreme Court is somehow in her pocket as above
Why would the government not want to appear confident? You don't go in saying "oh I'm going to lose, but what the hell"
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
Anyway, IANAL, but some of you guys are. What's your feeling on whether the government's appeal will be successful?
It is hard to see how it can succeed, unless they have the photos and recordings of the Supreme Court judges neatly filed away.
The mystery is why May is apparently so confident of her prospects. Possible answers:
A) it is all part of her cunning plan manourvering towards a 2017 general election B )the government has as yet no clue what it is doing and needs to play for more time C) the law is a fruit machine; pull the handle again and there's always some chance of three lemons D) the Supreme Court is somehow in her pocket as above
Why would the government not want to appear confident? You don't go in saying "oh I'm going to lose, but what the hell"
The question is why she doesn't simply accept the inevitable and take the issue to parliament now? Losing twice buys her nothing but a bit of time, at some cost to credibility.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particularly rancorous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
Anyway, IANAL, but some of you guys are. What's your feeling on whether the government's appeal will be successful?
It is hard to see how it can succeed, unless they have the photos and recordings of the Supreme Court judges neatly filed away.
The mystery is why May is apparently so confident of her prospects. Possible answers:
A) it is all part of her cunning plan manourvering towards a 2017 general election B )the government has as yet no clue what it is doing and needs to play for more time C) the law is a fruit machine; pull the handle again and there's always some chance of three lemons D) the Supreme Court is somehow in her pocket as above
Why would the government not want to appear confident? You don't go in saying "oh I'm going to lose, but what the hell"
The question is why she doesn't simply accept the inevitable and take the issue to parliament now? Losing twice buys her nothing but a bit of time, at some cost to credibility.
It would be unsatisfactory for the constitutional issues raised by this case not be ruled on definitively. A High Court judgement would not establish a binding precedent if a similar case about prerogative powers were brought in the future.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particular rancourous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
Except that all of us can read their judgement in full, and there is no bias that is apparent. Cromwell won the civil war and they are simply respecting the result.
Carl Gardner, a senior legal Remainer, thinks the judgement was rubbish, or, as he puts it, surprising, problematic, and wrongly decided.
It's been quoted here at length so I'll just provide a link
He's doing his best to chip away around the edges, from as many directions as he can dream up, but I don't see any killer argument in his piece. His use of phrases like "it seems to me at least arguable that..." are lawyer-speak for "this is a long shot, but you never know..."
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
Except that all of us can read their judgement in full, and there is no bias that is apparent. Cromwell won the civil war and they are simply respecting the result.
Carl Gardner, a senior legal Remainer, thinks the judgement was rubbish, or, as he puts it, surprising, problematic, and wrongly decided.
It's been quoted here at length so I'll just provide a link
Well, that article is the basis of the discussion we've been having here. It's the stuff about ministers acting unlawfully by signing treaties. The answer is that the treaties had no effect until they were ratified, and they weren't ratified until the required legislation had been passed by Parliament. A couple of the commenters on Gardner's blog do point this out.
If that's apparent to a layman after a few minutes' Googling, I wonder how senior Carl Gardner is, and whether he may be straying outside his area of expertise.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
Twaddle. This is the kind of nonsense that's dogged that inquiry into 'historic child sex abuse' - a succession of chairmen having to resign because of supposed links to 'The Establishment'. If you poke around in anyone's background you can find something that will persuade you that they're compromised or corrupt, if you're that mentally inclined. My belief is that you only get appointed to these positions in the first place because you've proven yourself to be scrupulously objective. But then I'm patriotic and have faith in my country.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
Except that all of us can read their judgement in full, and there is no bias that is apparent. Cromwell won the civil war and they are simply respecting the result.
Carl Gardner, a senior legal Remainer, thinks the judgement was rubbish, or, as he puts it, surprising, problematic, and wrongly decided.
Prof Tomkins:
Herein lies the fatal flaw in the third step of the High Court’s reasoning: how can the 1972 Parliament coherently be said to have intended an outcome that was not established in our constitutional law until nearly thirty years later? A ruling that relies on the proposition that the European Communities Act must be interpreted as if its authors intended their work to prevent ministers from exercising their prerogative powers over the making and unmaking of treaties is one that is inevitably anachronistic. It is therefore an irrational conclusion and, for that reason, there must surely be at least the prospect that the UK Supreme Court will in time overturn this week’s High Court ruling.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particular rancourous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
(Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!)
You'll set Justin off again.
I believe he's just set fire to Norwich Town Hall - he can't afford the Reichstag.
Trump is going to Minnesota tomorrow.He couldn't be close there or could he?
If he can squeeze Johnson back down closer to usual election levels then based on 538 he has a chance of making these midwest states competitive. That would appear to be the strategy; pretty much all the places he's going to are where there is a Johnson vote to squeeze that theoretically could get him over the line.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've g
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
What on earth do you see as the conflict of interest? It's an organisation for making European law technically better. Or is it now Leavers' settled view that European law is to be as half-assed as possible?
Dimwit
Baron Thomas founded the ELI, Here's just part of its remit:
Among ELI’s core tasks are:
"to evaluate and stimulate the development of EU law, legal policy, and practice, and in particular make proposals for the further development of the acquis and for the enhancement of EU law implementation by the Member States;
"to identify and analyse legal developments in areas within the competence of Member States which are relevant at the EU level;
"to study EU approaches regarding international law and enhance the role EU law could play globally, for instance in drafting international instruments or model rules;
"to conduct and facilitate pan-European research, in particular to draft, evaluate or improve principles and rules which are common to the European legal systems"
***
It's all about EU law slowly subsuming and incorporating UK law (and that of other member states) as the EU becomes a superstate (indeed the ELI is explicitly modelled on the American Law Institute). It is a powerful body dedicated to furthering ever-deeper EU integration.
And Baron Thomas is a founder member. This is his life's passion. If Brexit happens the UK will leave the ELI, and its hub in London (one of three) will be booted out of the country, as EU law and UK law are separated, thus undoing all of the good Baron's life's work.
And yet - and yet - we are supposed to believe he can set all this aside when adjudicating on a case which could potentially thwart Brexit, and save the gist of his career from total pointlessness.
As grabcocque has helpfully admitted, lawyers are humans. They have feelings. They're not always balanced. Baron Thomas was incapable of being neutral on this case. He should have recused himself.
No lawyer with any links whatsoever to the EU should sit on any future hearings to do with Brexit. TMay should put that in her manifesto. Zero tolerance.
You have gone full on crackpot with that post. I'll put it down to a very early gin o'clock and wish you a good evening.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particular rancourous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
(Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!)
You'll set Justin off again.
I believe he's just set fire to Norwich Town Hall - he can't afford the Reichstag.
* PEDANTRY ALERT * That would be Norwich City Hall, would it not?
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particular rancourous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
(Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!)
You'll set Justin off again.
I believe he's just set fire to Norwich Town Hall - he can't afford the Reichstag.
* PEDANTRY ALERT * That would be Norwich City Hall, would it not?
It's all the same to Stormkommando Justin when he's all brown-shirty.
I doubt Trump is following any kind of electoral advice or logic. He hasn't so far.
There's a logic of sorts: if he's lost Nevada, then he probably needs to win one of MN/WI/MI (on top of FL/NC/AZ/IA/etc etc). Even if it's bit of a long shot, doesn't take much of a polling error to bring it back into play, and his chances there are very strongly correlated with those in WI so it's probably closer than the few polls suggest.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
We're in a badly overwrought situation.
Lets consider some of the aspects of how we got here:
1) Government leaflets telling voters that they would make the decision
2) A Prime Minister who told the voters that he would be immediately trigger A50 and then didn't
3) A Court decision overruling what the government leaflets had told the voters about them making the decision
4) The EU - an organisation with a decades long history of overturning referendum results
5) A widespread feeling that the law is NOT equal and that "there's one rule for them and another for the rest of us"
Its a mess isn't it.
But who's fault is it ?
Not the ordinary person's, not even the media's but the people who are in charge of the country - politicians, judges, bankers etc
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particular rancourous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
(Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!)
You'll set Justin off again.
I believe he's just set fire to Norwich Town Hall - he can't afford the Reichstag.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
The same year that the European President, Donald Tusk, said that a vote for Brexit would mean "the end of western political civilisation".
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
Twaddle. This is the kind of nonsense that's dogged that inquiry into 'historic child sex abuse' - a succession of chairmen having to resign because of supposed links to 'The Establishment'. If you poke around in anyone's background you can find something that will persuade you that they're compromised or corrupt, if you're that mentally inclined. My belief is that you only get appointed to these positions in the first place because you've proven yourself to be scrupulously objective. But then I'm patriotic and have faith in my country.
Read my later tweet on Baron Thomas. He's not just linked to the EU, it is his founding passion.
So you're saying that if Baron Thomas hadn't been involved they'd have made the completely opposite judgement? I find that rather difficult to believe.
I'm (reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that the judges were correct.
* The referendum was unquestionably advisory, so cannot be automatically implemented.
* Invoking A50 will irrevocably remove legal rights.
* The government by itself cannot take away rights, so parliament must be involved at the start.
Hard to argue against those technical points.
The problem is that the whole think stinks of trickery to avoid a (real) Brexit, and leads to further distrust in the establishment.
I had an interesting debate yesterday with an SNP QC who was of the view that this argument about taking away rights was a novelty with no basis in our precedents or law. And he was a strong remainer. The government needs new and sharper arguments. I very much hope that Richard Keen, the Advocate General, is brought in for the appeal. He knows how to shape the arguments into a way that can win.
Trump is going to Minnesota tomorrow.He couldn't be close there or could he?
If he can squeeze Johnson back down closer to usual election levels then based on 538 he has a chance of making these midwest states competitive. That would appear to be the strategy; pretty much all the places he's going to are where there is a Johnson vote to squeeze that theoretically could get him over the line.
maybe, though those voters are younger/hate trump, so could easily break for clinton as well
I'd be interested in the view of a constitutional lawyer as to whether the mere repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act would restore the Royal Prerogative in the area. The conventional view is that the Royal Prerogative is a residue. If it has already been displaced in a particular respect, does it re-emerge if the displacement is removed? The answer isn't immediately clear to me but it's not my specialism.
Good valid points, and very intelligent. But if you were really cynical you might wonder whether getting into a big debate about this - something that would fascinate the journalists who cover politics while leaving most people bemused or disinterested - would be a perfect distraction from Brexit.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
The same year that the European President, Donald Tusk, said that a vote for Brexit would mean "the end of western political civilisation".
If Trump gets elected, are we gonna have to slug it out with him to get the credit?
Which is why I am coming to the conclusion we really need an election. As a rightwinger, I don't want one, as it might help Labour get rid of Corbyn.
Even if Labour does get rid if Jezza they'll probably replace him John McDonnell. Or Owen Jones... Or Shami...
And anyway if the Tories can get a majority of 100 The Blessed Tony himself could make a comeback and it would still take two elections to unravel the landslide.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
They were indeed ridiculous. But the DM must be chuffed to bits that people are still discussing today's chip wrappings (if the nasty, evil EU had not stopped us wrapping our chips in newsprint).
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particular rancourous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
(Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!)
You'll set Justin off again.
I believe he's just set fire to Norwich Town Hall - he can't afford the Reichstag.
* PEDANTRY ALERT * That would be Norwich City Hall, would it not?
Didn't Hitler want to make Norwich City Hall his HQ for governing Britain?
Lets consider some of the aspects of how we got here:
1) Government leaflets telling voters that they would make the decision
2) A Prime Minister who told the voters that he would be immediately trigger A50 and then didn't
3) A Court decision overruling what the government leaflets had told the voters about them making the decision
4) The EU - an organisation with a decades long history of overturning referendum results
5) A widespread feeling that the law is NOT equal and that "there's one rule for them and another for the rest of us"
Its a mess isn't it.
But who's fault is it ?
Not the ordinary person's, not even the media's but the people who are in charge of the country - politicians, judges, bankers etc
You might also add to your list the numerous Continuity Remain politicians and media personalities, who deftly combine outrage about the danger to democracy posed by the demonization of judges with loud and continuous demands for Parliament to ignore the referendum result and cancel Brexit.
It's no wonder that so many people are willing to swallow a narrative of betrayal, when many in positions of power want to betray them and are proud to say so.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particular rancourous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
(Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!)
You'll set Justin off again.
I believe he's just set fire to Norwich Town Hall - he can't afford the Reichstag.
* PEDANTRY ALERT * That would be Norwich City Hall, would it not?
Didn't Hitler want to make Norwich City Hall his HQ for governing Britain?
(Wearing serious hat this time): no, that was Blenheim Palace.
I'm (reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that the judges were correct.
* The referendum was unquestionably advisory, so cannot be automatically implemented.
* Invoking A50 will irrevocably remove legal rights.
* The government by itself cannot take away rights, so parliament must be involved at the start.
Hard to argue against those technical points.
The problem is that the whole think stinks of trickery to avoid a (real) Brexit, and leads to further distrust in the establishment.
I had an interesting debate yesterday with an SNP QC who was of the view that this argument about taking away rights was a novelty with no basis in our precedents or law. And he was a strong remainer. The government needs new and sharper arguments. I very much hope that Richard Keen, the Advocate General, is brought in for the appeal. He knows how to shape the arguments into a way that can win.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
We've seen such an example in Turkey this year.
And this year a Remain supporting MP was murdered by someone who gave his name as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.'
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
As this is a particular rancourous thread, let's end it Godwin style:
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
(Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!)
You'll set Justin off again.
I believe he's just set fire to Norwich Town Hall - he can't afford the Reichstag.
* PEDANTRY ALERT * That would be Norwich City Hall, would it not?
Didn't Hitler want to make Norwich City Hall his HQ for governing Britain?
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
Twaddle. This is the kind of nonsense that's dogged that inquiry into 'historic child sex abuse' - a succession of chairmen having to resign because of supposed links to 'The Establishment'. If you poke around in anyone's background you can find something that will persuade you that they're compromised or corrupt, if you're that mentally inclined. My belief is that you only get appointed to these positions in the first place because you've proven yourself to be scrupulously objective. But then I'm patriotic and have faith in my country.
Read my later tweet on Baron Thomas. He's not just linked to the EU, it is his founding passion.
Which brings us back to a point I asked the other day (but wasn't answered, AFAIK) - who put together the panel of three judges?
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
Except that all of us can read their judgement in full, and there is no bias that is apparent. Cromwell won the civil war and they are simply respecting the result.
Carl Gardner, a senior legal Remainer, thinks the judgement was rubbish, or, as he puts it, surprising, problematic, and wrongly decided.
Prof Tomkins:
Herein lies the fatal flaw in the third step of the High Court’s reasoning: how can the 1972 Parliament coherently be said to have intended an outcome that was not established in our constitutional law until nearly thirty years later? A ruling that relies on the proposition that the European Communities Act must be interpreted as if its authors intended their work to prevent ministers from exercising their prerogative powers over the making and unmaking of treaties is one that is inevitably anachronistic. It is therefore an irrational conclusion and, for that reason, there must surely be at least the prospect that the UK Supreme Court will in time overturn this week’s High Court ruling.
But really it seems rather bizarre to argue that Parliament's primacy in the sphere of legislation is a recent innovation. The judges did go to the trouble of giving a detailed survey of the background, starting with Sir Edward Coke in 1610: "the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm".
Not the ordinary person's, not even the media's but the people who are in charge of the country - politicians, judges, bankers etc
Exactly, all we did is believe what were told and vote, it's not our fault that the country is run by weasels.
Indeed.
To the average person this looks like some shysters wriggling out of what they had promised.
Trust has gone.
The A50 judgement is only the latest straw after endless lies on immigration, the bankers walking away with their millions, politicians and their expenses, Philip Green and the BHS pension fund, tax dodgers and child abusers at the BBC, criminal plods, the Iraq war lies etc etc etc
We're told that we have to 'respect' Judges.
Why ???
In my world respect has to be earned first and the British establishment has done damn all to earn that respect.
Lets consider some of the aspects of how we got here:
1) Government leaflets telling voters that they would make the decision
2) A Prime Minister who told the voters that he would be immediately trigger A50 and then didn't
3) A Court decision overruling what the government leaflets had told the voters about them making the decision
4) The EU - an organisation with a decades long history of overturning referendum results
5) A widespread feeling that the law is NOT equal and that "there's one rule for them and another for the rest of us"
Its a mess isn't it.
But who's fault is it ?
Not the ordinary person's, not even the media's but the people who are in charge of the country - politicians, judges, bankers etc
You might also add to your list the numerous Continuity Remain politicians and media personalities, who deftly combine outrage about the danger to democracy posed by the demonization of judges with loud and continuous demands for Parliament to ignore the referendum result and cancel Brexit.
It's no wonder that so many people are willing to swallow a narrative of betrayal, when many in positions of power want to betray them and are proud to say so.
Judges are not "in charge of the country". What utter tosh. They apply the law, past by Parliament.
Not the ordinary person's, not even the media's but the people who are in charge of the country - politicians, judges, bankers etc
Exactly, all we did is believe what were told and vote, it's not our fault that the country is run by weasels.
Indeed.
To the average person this looks like some shysters wriggling out of what they had promised.
Trust has gone.
The A50 judgement is only the latest straw after endless lies on immigration, the bankers walking away with their millions, politicians and their expenses, Philip Green and the BHS pension fund, tax dodgers and child abusers at the BBC, criminal plods, the Iraq war lies etc etc etc
We're told that we have to 'respect' Judges.
Why ???
In my world respect has to be earned first and the British establishment has done damn all to earn that respect.
And this is exactly why, if the establishment don't get their head out of the clouds and start coming to terms with the referendum pretty soon, things might actually turn very nasty.
The country feels like a powder keg right now, waiting to ignite...
I think Theresa May does "get" this but most of the establishment don't yet.
In my world respect has to be earned first and the British establishment has done damn all to earn that respect.
Another thing occurs to me is that the current impasse appears to be another consequence of Cameron rushing, he had until the end of 2017 to call the referendum. He might have got a better deal if he had taken more time, or at least allowed for more preparation for what happens after the vote.
I'm (reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that the judges were correct.
* The referendum was unquestionably advisory, so cannot be automatically implemented.
* Invoking A50 will irrevocably remove legal rights.
* The government by itself cannot take away rights, so parliament must be involved at the start.
Hard to argue against those technical points.
The problem is that the whole think stinks of trickery to avoid a (real) Brexit, and leads to further distrust in the establishment.
I had an interesting debate yesterday with an SNP QC who was of the view that this argument about taking away rights was a novelty with no basis in our precedents or law. And he was a strong remainer. The government needs new and sharper arguments. I very much hope that Richard Keen, the Advocate General, is brought in for the appeal. He knows how to shape the arguments into a way that can win.
Yes. The way the Government argued this case would make someone who loves a good conspiracy think that they wanted to lose. It was utterly inept.
Edit. Thanks for the link by the way. Really interesting read.
Your points about popular sovereignty were very interesting.
Certainly, since Dicey's time, women and working class men have been enfranchised, the Lords is no longer the equal of the Commons, the business vote and university seats abolished, the principle of equal-sized constituencies generally accepted, devolved legislatures have been created, and numerous referenda held, and the outcomes of those referenda then legislated upon. It's a very different world.
I'm (reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that the judges were correct.
* The referendum was unquestionably advisory, so cannot be automatically implemented.
* Invoking A50 will irrevocably remove legal rights.
* The government by itself cannot take away rights, so parliament must be involved at the start.
Hard to argue against those technical points.
The problem is that the whole think stinks of trickery to avoid a (real) Brexit, and leads to further distrust in the establishment.
I had an interesting debate yesterday with an SNP QC who was of the view that this argument about taking away rights was a novelty with no basis in our precedents or law. And he was a strong remainer. The government needs new and sharper arguments. I very much hope that Richard Keen, the Advocate General, is brought in for the appeal. He knows how to shape the arguments into a way that can win.
Yes. The way the Government argued this case would make someone who loves a good conspiracy think that they wanted to lose. It was utterly inept.
Edit. Thanks for the link by the way. Really interesting read.
Finnis is very much a non-mug. I'm not sure how well the tax treaty analogy really works (other academics don't seem to think it's such a clincher as he does), but Finnis is not the only non-mug to think the decision was incorrect and other people have other arguments for thinking so - I just found his piece particularly interesting for pinpointing a moment in the courtroom where things might have turned around, and might be argued better the next time. It's pretty clear that the govt had (or could, or should, have had) a decent case.
It wouldn't surprise me, though, if the Supreme Court ultimately come down the same way but acknowledge a few "corrections" to the thought process.
In my world respect has to be earned first and the British establishment has done damn all to earn that respect.
Another thing occurs to me is that the current impasse appears to be another consequence of Cameron rushing, he had until the end of 2017 to call the referendum. He might have got a better deal if he had taken more time, or at least allowed for more preparation for what happens after the vote.
1. He was never interested in getting a "deal" as evidenced by him telling people in 2013 that he would campaign to remain whatever happened. The "negotiation" was just smoke and mirrors.
2. He and Osborne would always have arrogantly assumed the riff raff would do what they were told and vote to remain so they would never have taken seriously the prospect that leave might win and planned accordingly.
Lets consider some of the aspects of how we got here:
1) Government leaflets telling voters that they would make the decision
2) A Prime Minister who told the voters that he would be immediately trigger A50 and then didn't
3) A Court decision overruling what the government leaflets had told the voters about them making the decision
4) The EU - an organisation with a decades long history of overturning referendum results
5) A widespread feeling that the law is NOT equal and that "there's one rule for them and another for the rest of us"
Its a mess isn't it.
But who's fault is it ?
Not the ordinary person's, not even the media's but the people who are in charge of the country - politicians, judges, bankers etc
You might also add to your list the numerous Continuity Remain politicians and media personalities, who deftly combine outrage about the danger to democracy posed by the demonization of judges with loud and continuous demands for Parliament to ignore the referendum result and cancel Brexit.
It's no wonder that so many people are willing to swallow a narrative of betrayal, when many in positions of power want to betray them and are proud to say so.
Judges are not "in charge of the country". What utter tosh. They apply the law, past by Parliament.
It took me a few moments to work out what you were complaining about.
@another_richard mentioned, at the end of his remarks, the judges as part of what I read as a broad critique of a complacent establishment.
I, for my part, only talked about the misbehaviour of some of the politicians and media personalities who want to unpick the verdict of the people, because it runs contrary to what they want. This is beyond dispute. They have called for Parliament to veto Brexit quite unashamedly. I didn't mention the judges at all.
I see the latest update of Nate Cohn's North Carolina analysis shows Hillary Clinton's projected lead up to 6.4%.
This is essentially a recalibration of a poll from a fortnight ago, based on demographic data about early voters. As the polls have shifted since then, it certainly can't be taken at face value, but his initial projection was a 6% Clinton lead, so it does imply that in demographic terms the turnout so far is better than had been expected for Clinton.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
I would compare it to criticising the referees after a defeat and then further accusing them of bias exacerbated by one of them being an admitted homosexual.
A football manager would probably get a lifetime ban. The Daily Mail gets a bunch of nodding donkeys on PB agreeing with them
Trump is going to Minnesota tomorrow.He couldn't be close there or could he?
If he can squeeze Johnson back down closer to usual election levels then based on 538 he has a chance of making these midwest states competitive. That would appear to be the strategy; pretty much all the places he's going to are where there is a Johnson vote to squeeze that theoretically could get him over the line.
maybe, though those voters are younger/hate trump, so could easily break for clinton as well
I'm not sure they're all younger but even assuming that were true, if they aren't already voting Clinton then they probably lean republican. The polling shows a distinct correlation with Stein taking from Clinton and Johnson taking from Trump. Indeed, Trump's recent uptick has largely been at the expense of Johnson's share in the polls.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
I would compare it to criticising the referees after a defeat and then further accusing them of bias exacerbated by one of them being an admitted homosexual.
A football manager would probably get a lifetime ban. The Daily Mail gets a bunch of nodding donkeys on PB agreeing with them
Look, nobody's saying the Mail was acting responsibly, but you'd imagine an openly gay fencer probably won't be triggered by being called an openly olypmic ex-gay fencer, irrespective of the unpleasant motives.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
I would compare it to criticising the referees after a defeat and then further accusing them of bias exacerbated by one of them being an admitted homosexual.
A football manager would probably get a lifetime ban. The Daily Mail gets a bunch of nodding donkeys on PB agreeing with them
Football fans accuse referees of all manner of depravities.
I see the latest update of Nate Cohn's North Carolina analysis shows Hillary Clinton's projected lead up to 6.4%.
This is essentially a recalibration of a poll from a fortnight ago, based on demographic data about early voters. As the polls have shifted since then, it certainly can't be taken at face value, but his initial projection was a 6% Clinton lead, so it does imply that in demographic terms the turnout so far is better than had been expected for Clinton.
Could you translate the lingo please. I get it means educated voters more Clinton etc but I don't get this tweet at all. Thanx.
I see the latest update of Nate Cohn's North Carolina analysis shows Hillary Clinton's projected lead up to 6.4%.
This is essentially a recalibration of a poll from a fortnight ago, based on demographic data about early voters. As the polls have shifted since then, it certainly can't be taken at face value, but his initial projection was a 6% Clinton lead, so it does imply that in demographic terms the turnout so far is better than had been expected for Clinton.
Yeah, I am not trusting Cohn's analysis at all. I think Trump has won NC.
Must cost Trump a pretty penny to fly that thing around the country – and very convenient.
It's leased to the campaign by a Trump company. He's making money on it.
Not sure how that works, someone's picking up the tab, be it his company or Trump himself.
The campaign is picking up the tab at the moment. All those small donation are going to pay Trump to fly around in his own aircraft. And rent office space from himself. And pay for holding fund raising events in his resorts.
Must cost Trump a pretty penny to fly that thing around the country – and very convenient.
It's leased to the campaign by a Trump company. He's making money on it.
Not sure how that works, someone's picking up the tab, be it his company or Trump himself.
The campaign is picking up the tab at the moment. All those small donation are going to pay Trump to fly around in his own aircraft. And rent office space from himself. And pay for holding fund raising events in his resorts.
He sounds to a smart businessman, - I take it Hilary is just spending everyone’s money...!
Comments
There's been a strong swing to the GOP among Irish / Italian / Polish Catholics for example.
CALLING A GENERAL ELECTION frankly, wtf are they for?
Only reason I asked about Ms/Mrs Hannah is because that particular copy/paste tweet seemed to be generating such comment...
The mystery is why May is apparently so confident of her prospects. Possible answers:
A) it is all part of her cunning plan manoeuvring towards a 2017 general election
B )the government has as yet no clue what it is doing and needs to play for more time
C) the law is a fruit machine; pull the handle again and there's always some chance of getting three lemons
D) the Supreme Court is somehow in her pocket as above
But, certainly the Supreme Court needs to rule on a case of such importance, and has to spell out what Parliament must do to trigger A 50, in the event that the High Court judgement is upheld.
DavidL's point from earlier was very good.
The front page editorial of a British newspaper urged their readers to "Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight" in response to the court's decision.
Why else would ScottP have cited her as an authority worth paying heed to?
And to be fair Ms. Plato can be as bad for copy/pasting Tweets that seem pretty pointless 90% of the time...
Although it would be mildly interesting to know how many people Scott follows on twitter.
Unless that is he is being passed the tweets by someone higher up the chain.
Over to Joe:
"Now, people, rise up, and let the storm break loose"
(Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!)
If that's apparent to a layman after a few minutes' Googling, I wonder how senior Carl Gardner is, and whether he may be straying outside his area of expertise.
Herein lies the fatal flaw in the third step of the High Court’s reasoning: how can the 1972 Parliament coherently be said to have intended an outcome that was not established in our constitutional law until nearly thirty years later? A ruling that relies on the proposition that the European Communities Act must be interpreted as if its authors intended their work to prevent ministers from exercising their prerogative powers over the making and unmaking of treaties is one that is inevitably anachronistic. It is therefore an irrational conclusion and, for that reason, there must surely be at least the prospect that the UK Supreme Court will in time overturn this week’s High Court ruling.
Lets consider some of the aspects of how we got here:
1) Government leaflets telling voters that they would make the decision
2) A Prime Minister who told the voters that he would be immediately trigger A50 and then didn't
3) A Court decision overruling what the government leaflets had told the voters about them making the decision
4) The EU - an organisation with a decades long history of overturning referendum results
5) A widespread feeling that the law is NOT equal and that "there's one rule for them and another for the rest of us"
Its a mess isn't it.
But who's fault is it ?
Not the ordinary person's, not even the media's but the people who are in charge of the country - politicians, judges, bankers etc
Based on the Daily Mail's reaction, he was right.
How many individual tweets have you read ?
You PB work-rate must rival tim's.
Could they not be telling trump what their internal polls say
And anyway if the Tories can get a majority of 100 The Blessed Tony himself could make a comeback and it would still take two elections to unravel the landslide.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304494-poll-trump-clinton-in-dead-heat-in-iowa#
Didn't Hitler want to make Norwich City Hall his HQ for governing Britain?
It's no wonder that so many people are willing to swallow a narrative of betrayal, when many in positions of power want to betray them and are proud to say so.
Trump Plane 2016
Edit. Thanks for the link by the way. Really interesting read.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4461879.stm
TX #earlyvote update: 15 largest counties reporting, just shy of 4.5 Million voted, up 32.0% from 2012
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/brexit-democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/
But really it seems rather bizarre to argue that Parliament's primacy in the sphere of legislation is a recent innovation. The judges did go to the trouble of giving a detailed survey of the background, starting with Sir Edward Coke in 1610:
"the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm".
To the average person this looks like some shysters wriggling out of what they had promised.
Trust has gone.
The A50 judgement is only the latest straw after endless lies on immigration, the bankers walking away with their millions, politicians and their expenses, Philip Green and the BHS pension fund, tax dodgers and child abusers at the BBC, criminal plods, the Iraq war lies etc etc etc
We're told that we have to 'respect' Judges.
Why ???
In my world respect has to be earned first and the British establishment has done damn all to earn that respect.
Matron.
The country feels like a powder keg right now, waiting to ignite...
I think Theresa May does "get" this but most of the establishment don't yet.
Clinton 1.295
Trump 4.55
Pence 885
Biden 955
Sanders 960
Probability of a Trump win:
Polls (538): 35%
Betting (Betfair): 22%
Certainly, since Dicey's time, women and working class men have been enfranchised, the Lords is no longer the equal of the Commons, the business vote and university seats abolished, the principle of equal-sized constituencies generally accepted, devolved legislatures have been created, and numerous referenda held, and the outcomes of those referenda then legislated upon. It's a very different world.
It wouldn't surprise me, though, if the Supreme Court ultimately come down the same way but acknowledge a few "corrections" to the thought process.
You might also be interested in a few of the other short pieces at http://judicialpowerproject.org.uk/high-court-miller-judgment-expert-reactions/ - quite a varied bunch.
2. He and Osborne would always have arrogantly assumed the riff raff would do what they were told and vote to remain so they would never have taken seriously the prospect that leave might win and planned accordingly.
@another_richard mentioned, at the end of his remarks, the judges as part of what I read as a broad critique of a complacent establishment.
I, for my part, only talked about the misbehaviour of some of the politicians and media personalities who want to unpick the verdict of the people, because it runs contrary to what they want. This is beyond dispute. They have called for Parliament to veto Brexit quite unashamedly. I didn't mention the judges at all.
This is essentially a recalibration of a poll from a fortnight ago, based on demographic data about early voters. As the polls have shifted since then, it certainly can't be taken at face value, but his initial projection was a 6% Clinton lead, so it does imply that in demographic terms the turnout so far is better than had been expected for Clinton.
A football manager would probably get a lifetime ban. The Daily Mail gets a bunch of nodding donkeys on PB agreeing with them
https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/794950097171841024