I don't think Hillary is ~ 65% likely to win Florida, I've laid out my previous GOP stake at 1.49 on Betfair.
I've just laid Hillary for a few ponies (I don't know what a pony is but I presume I have)....and that's my last play before it all kicks off tomorrow night
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
I believe that commercial life in both Britain and Europe is so interdependent that a customs wall, for example, between us is impossible.
Switzerland is not in the customs union and does 70% of its trade with the EU. They seem to get on just fine. Better than fine, in fact.
Are you sure about that; I thought there was a dispute going on. And Switzerland never got as involved as we did in the first place. It’s always a lot harder to unravel something than set it up in the first place.
I terms of trade the figures are correct and Switzerland isn't in the customs union. That and foreign judges was why the public rejected membership, and the latter is why they rejected the EEA later on.
Just the scheduled reminder for all Leavers endlessly whining about Remoaners. Perhaps this could be posted at regular intervals every week, or there could be a trigger when the use of 'Remoaner' gets above a certain level?
I see the daily mail aren't backing down from their enemy of the people routine, today publishing profiles of the supreme court judges pointing out any connections to EU & previous judgments that the Daily Mail doesn't approve of.
Meanwhile, Farage is planning to march on the Court with a load of his fellow pitchforkers apparently.
One side effect of this is that we can now see *some* Brexiters' attitudes to the rule of law. It is not a pretty sight.
I don't have any problem with the Mail poring over the backgrounds of the Supreme Court judges to try to identify their possible predispositions in this case; I'm planning to do so myself. I do have a problem with them suggesting that any of the judges are actively biased or compromised without the most compelling of evidence. This isn't it and is fit only for crackpots.
Most of the Leave campaign was predicated on eg the IFS being in the pocket of their EU paymasters.
There is no aspect of Britain's civic society that some Leavers aren't prepared to dismember in pursuit of their mania. And far too few of the other Leavers are willing to stand up to their fellow travellers and tell them that they are dangerously wrong.
I have never revet - be part of the Britain I love.
Well said. The Daily Mail and similar coverage seemed to be encouraging mob rule, as indeed so has Farage. We can do without Momentum, Trumpism (plus Farage playing Robin to his Batman) and newspapers challenging the rule of law.
To echo @Cyclefree's comments, the Britain I have lived in and, ahem, served, is one where demonstrations are vigorous, noisy and inconvenient; where protests are irritating and troublesome; and where there is even the odd swinging off national monuments by entitled youngsters. It is also one where, at times, legitimate protest has spilled over into riots, quickly quelled with the full backing of the authorities. And it is a country which examines very carefully the use of that authority and its potential abuse.
But it has never in my lifetime been one where the authorities are or are seen to be ambivalent towards protest or riot or civil unrest. Or where a section of society might be genuinely worried about its own well-being and who might be there to offer protection when another section of society is angry.
We shall see how this mood develops, but I am shall we say cautious about the future.
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
The question on the ballot paper wasn't that specific.
Just the scheduled reminder for all Leavers endlessly whining about Remoaners. Perhaps this could be posted at regular intervals every week, or there could be a trigger when the use of 'Remoaner' gets above a certain level?
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
Out of respect for people like Big G in North Wales who voted to stay in the EU completely, we need to strike a balance.
Just the scheduled reminder for all Leavers endlessly whining about Remoaners. Perhaps this could be posted at regular intervals every week, or there could be a trigger when the use of 'Remoaner' gets above a certain level?
Cue Gadarene rush to deny any connection with Farage.
Endless whining (aka gently pointing out to them it's time to move on psychologically) about Remoaners is a response to endless whining *from* Remoaners. If the latter stops, there's likely to be a sharp drop in the former.
Rubio's performance in Florida vs Trump will be instructive.
The repubs will probably go for someone like Rubio next time if they lose
But the Trumpers will be lukewarm for Rubio, and the dems will have millions of fresh voters, so he loses in a different way.
Perversely, it suits the dems to maintain the fiction that the repubs still have chance in US elections, to retain confidence in the system amongst whites.
I don't think Hillary is ~ 65% likely to win Florida, I've laid out my previous GOP stake at 1.49 on Betfair.
I've just laid Hillary for a few ponies (I don't know what a pony is but I presume I have)....and that's my last play before it all kicks off tomorrow night
The early voting figures for Florida have been updated. As early voting concluded yesterday, these may be the final figures, but I'm not sure.
The overall Democrat lead is now 87,000, or 1.4% of those who have voted. Also, the total number who have voted early is about 6,420,000, which is more than three quarters of the total turnout in 2012.
Making the usual assumptions, that obviously means that to cancel out the Democrat lead Trump would have to be more than 4% ahead in voting on the day. In 2012 I think the Republican advantage on election day was about 0.7%. The change in the early voting percentages is about 1% in the Republicans' favour compared with 2012.
I see the daily mail aren't backing down from their enemy of the people routine, today publishing profiles of the supreme court judges pointing out any connections to EU & previous judgments that the Daily Mail doesn't approve of.
Meanwhile, Farage is planning to march on the Court with a load of his fellow pitchforkers apparently.
One side effect of this is that we can now see *some* Brexiters' attitudes to the rule of law. It is not a pretty sight.
I don't have any problem with the Mail poring over the backgrounds of the Supreme Court judges to try to identify their possible predispositions in this case; I'm planning to do so myself. I do have a problem with them suggesting that any of the judges are actively biased or compromised without the most compelling of evidence. This isn't it and is fit only for crackpots.
Most of the Leave campaign was predicated on eg the IFS being in the pocket of their EU paymasters.
There is no aspect of Britain's civic society that some Leavers aren't prepared to dismember in pursuit of their mania. And far too few of the other Leavers are willing to stand up to their fellow travellers and tell them that they are dangerously wrong.
I have never revealed my vote and don't intend to. But I am very willing to say that those on the Leave side who attack the idea that the government should be subject to the rule of law are indeed wrong and dangerously so. This is a key principle that our forefathers fought for since Magna Carta. It is the basis of the rule of law. It is one of the things which makes me proud of Britain. It is one of the things which Britain has brought to the world.
Criticise legal judgments by all means. Do so in robust fashion. Free speech matters. It too is key to our freedoms.
But marches on courts, talk of "enemies of the people", the belief that governments must implement the peoples' will without any regard to the law are things which are rather more reminiscent of rackety and illiberal Continental regimes we have become rather too familiar with in the recent past. They are not - and should not - be part of the Britain I love.
I think most people assumed that the result of the referendum would be honoured. I imagine many Leavers are panicking when they see dozens of politicians stating that they will try and prevent Brexit.
I see the daily mail aren't backing down from their enemy of the people routine, today publishing profiles of the supreme court judges pointing out any connections to EU & previous judgments that the Daily Mail doesn't approve of.
Meanwhile, Farage is planning to march on the Court with a load of his fellow pitchforkers apparently.
One side effect of this is that we can now see *some* Brexiters' attitudes to the rule of law. It is not a pretty sight.
I don't have any problem with the Mail poring over the backgrounds of the Supreme Court judges to try to identify their possible predispositions in this case; I'm planning to do so myself. I do have a problem with them suggesting that any of the judges are actively biased or compromised without the most compelling of evidence. This isn't it and is fit only for crackpots.
Most of the Leave campaign was predicated on eg the IFS being in the pocket of their EU paymasters.
There is no aspect of Britain's civic society that some Leavers aren't prepared to dismember in pursuit of their mania. And far too few of the other Leavers are willing to stand up to their fellow travellers and tell them that they are dangerously wrong.
I have never revealed my vote and don't intend to. But I am very willing to say that those on the Leave side who attack the idea that the government should be subject to the rule of law are indeed wrong and dangerously so. This is a key principle that our forefathers fought for since Magna Carta. It is the basis of the rule of law. It is one of the things which makes me proud of Britain. It is one of the things which Britain has brought to the world.
Criticise legal judgments by all means. Do so in robust fashion. Free speech matters. It too is key to our freedoms.
But marches on courts, talk of "enemies of the people", the belief that governments must implement the peoples' will without any regard to the law are things which are rather more reminiscent of rackety and illiberal Continental regimes we have become rather too familiar with in the recent past. They are not - and should not - be part of the Britain I love.
I think most people assumed that the result of the referendum would be honoured. I imagine many Leavers are panicking when they see dozens of politicians stating that they will try and prevent Brexit.
There is no aspect of Britain's civic society that some Leavers aren't prepared to dismember in pursuit of their mania. And far too few of the other Leavers are willing to stand up to their fellow travellers and tell them that they are dangerously wrong.
I have never revet - be part of the Britain I love.
Well said. The Daily Mail and similar coverage seemed to be encouraging mob rule, as indeed so has Farage. We can do without Momentum, Trumpism (plus Farage playing Robin to his Batman) and newspapers challenging the rule of law.
To echo @Cyclefree's comments, the Britain I have lived in and, ahem, served, is one where demonstrations are vigorous, noisy and inconvenient; where protests are irritating and troublesome; and where there is even the odd swinging off national monuments by entitled youngsters. It is also one where, at times, legitimate protest has spilled over into riots, quickly quelled with the full backing of the authorities. And it is a country which examines very carefully the use of that authority and its potential abuse.
But it has never in my lifetime been one where the authorities are or are seen to be ambivalent towards protest or riot or civil unrest. Or where a section of society might be genuinely worried about its own well-being and who might be there to offer protection when another section of society is angry.
We shall see how this mood develops, but I am shall we say cautious about the future.
And much of the protest was about making sure the authorities did comply with the law, did not just lord it over the rest.
It is ironic that those leavers who, rightly, criticise the top down attitude of the EU, its rather contemptuous approach to democracy or its willingness to ignore to its own rules when convenient, are adopting the very same approach when the government seeks to do take action without complying with the law.
There is an arrogance in both sides which does not bode well for the future.
A Britain outside the EU where the government does not comply with the law is hardly going to be an attractive place for people to live and work in or for for businesses to invest.
I don't think Hillary is ~ 65% likely to win Florida, I've laid out my previous GOP stake at 1.49 on Betfair.
I've just laid Hillary for a few ponies (I don't know what a pony is but I presume I have)....and that's my last play before it all kicks off tomorrow night
Ponies on the elephant or the donkey?
On the elephant......
I'm hedging on all my state pro donkey polls with a good whack on the elephant.....
The trick is to stay sober for the night. I was masses up on 2008; I'd spent all year building it up and then lost my judgement slightly on the night. What should have been a sizeable 4 figure winnings turned into something in the low three figures.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
I think most people assumed that the result of the referendum would be honoured. I imagine many Leavers are panicking when they see dozens of politicians stating that they will try and prevent Brexit.
The only reason to panic is that they lack the confidence that the majority in the country for Leave will endure. Otherwise just sit back and when the time comes, elect a parliament that isn't going to drag its heels.
The reason they're panicking is that they don't believe the public will stay on their side.
I think most people assumed that the result of the referendum would be honoured. I imagine many Leavers are panicking when they see dozens of politicians stating that they will try and prevent Brexit.
The only reason to panic is that they lack the confidence that the majority in country for Leave will endure. Otherwise just sit back and when the time comes, elect a parliament that isn't going to drag its heels.
The reason they're panicking is that they don't believe the public will stay on their side.
They're probably worried that neither main party will give them the option - as they hadn't for over 40 years. I'm not particularly worried that that will be the case, but it's not impossible.
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
I don't know what the Leave vote meant, except that it meant we would leave the EU. We were offered a number of alternatives to EU membership and I assumed that Parliament would decide which one we would take, subject - of course - to negotiation with the remaining EU member states.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why?
Farage wants two things:
- To have a big stage on which to perform - To bring down the EU
Brexit hinders both of those ambitions. His self-interest is actually in having Brexit overturned, staying in the European Parliament and continuing to foster dissent until, he hopes, the whole thing comes crashing down.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
Ockhams Razor: Farage is not as clever as he thinks. He sees a judgment he does not like and goes after the judges. Much like he abuses a Van Rompuy and therefore detracts from the very legitimate and well- founded criticisms which can be made of the system which puts such a resin in a position of power.
Has Farage said anything well thought through about how, precisely, we leave the EU and what precise relationship we should now have?
And much of the protest was about making sure the authorities did comply with the law, did not just lord it over the rest.
It is ironic that those leavers who, rightly, criticise the top down attitude of the EU, its rather contemptuous approach to democracy or its willingness to ignore to its own rules when convenient, are adopting the very same approach when the government seeks to do take action without complying with the law.
There is an arrogance in both sides which does not bode well for the future.
A Britain outside the EU where the government does not comply with the law is hardly going to be an attractive place for people to live and work in or for for businesses to invest.
Given that the government is following legal procedures and appealling the decision in court rather than taking extra-judicial measures I think you're worrying over nothing. The Times leaked the trail this morning that the government intends to put through s simple resolution within one day f the appeal is lost. The presd can moan as much as they want but there is no evidence that the government is acting outside of the law.
''well pussygate wouldve screwed him over regardless ''
People working two low paid jobs in hollowed out cities to survive.
I'm sure they base their voting decisions on unproven allegations of sexual misconduct.
Lowly paid women who have to put up with sexual harrassment as the price of keeping their jobs may very well see his boasts differently.
If only blue collar whie American males were voting, then you might have a point, but America is much more diverse than that, and indeed much more diverse than Britain.
indeed everyone talks about Trumps voters but Clinton is winning loads of working class voters. They are just hispanic and Black.
I do not think politicians would be so idiotic as to ignore the result of the referendum. But if they were they sure as hell won't listen to several thousand people marching in protest.
Has Farage said anything well thought through about how, precisely, we leave the EU and what precise relationship we should now have?
To Farage the idea of having a relationship with the EU is anathema. To the extent that Brexit implies that the EU will continue to exist without us and we will continue to have a relationship with it, it's a disaster for him.
That's why he immediately started looking for a role as a kind of roving revolutionary going round Europe stoking up resentment.
I see the daily mail aren't backing down from their enemy of the people routine, today publishing profiles of the supreme court judges pointing out any connections to EU & previous judgments that the Daily Mail doesn't approve of.
Meanwhile, Farage is planning to march on the Court with a load of his fellow pitchforkers apparently.
One side effect of this is that we can now see *some* Brexiters' attitudes to the rule of law. It is not a pretty sight.
I don't have any problem with the Mail poring over the backgrounds of the Supreme Court judges to try to identify their possible predispositions in this case; I'm planning to do so myself. I do have a problem with them suggesting that any of the judges are actively biased or compromised without the most compelling of evidence. This isn't it and is fit only for crackpots.
Most of the Leave campaign was predicated on eg the IFS being in the pocket of their EU paymasters.
There is no aspect of Britain's civic society that some Leavers aren't prepared to dismember in pursuit of their mania. And far too few of the other Leavers are willing to stand up to their fellow travellers and tell them that they are dangerously wrong.
But marches on courts, talk of "enemies of the people", the belief that governments must implement the peoples' will without any regard to the law are things which are rather more reminiscent of rackety and illiberal Continental regimes we have become rather too familiar with in the recent past. They are not - and should not - be part of the Britain I love.
I think most people assumed that the result of the referendum would be honoured. I imagine many Leavers are panicking when they see dozens of politicians stating that they will try and prevent Brexit.
My expectation is that a Brexit Bill (if such is required) will be the subject of repeated wrecking amendments in the Lords.
One of the first things I was taught as an Articled Clerk is that you never give a guarantee or undertaking for something that is outside of your control. If say, an amendment is passed which makes the invocation of A50 dependent upon the UK remaining a member of the Single Market, then the government is being asked to guarantee something that it is outside of its control. Which makes the invocation of A50 effectively impossible.
That's not fatal. May could ram through a single clause Bill by using the Parliament Act, but it would cause her timetable to slip.
If Trump loses, then I think he could have won by doing exactly the same - outwith the whole "Build the wall" thing.
Trade o Muslims o Social conservative pivot o Iraq o "Hillary in jail" o Mexico/Wall x
He could have won - assuming he doesn't - had he simply avoided being disproportionately gratuitously insulting to women. There are many paths to victory which he could have taken but doing something about his scores with women would have been one of the easiest.
well pussygate would've screwed him over regardless
Perhaps, but it would have been easier to mitigate - which is to say, wouldn't have been so damaging - had the release not played into a narrative he'd already created for himself.
And much of the protest was about making sure the authorities did comply with the law, did not just lord it over the rest.
It is ironic that those leavers who, rightly, criticise the top down attitude of the EU, its rather contemptuous approach to democracy or its willingness to ignore to its own rules when convenient, are adopting the very same approach when the government seeks to do take action without complying with the law.
There is an arrogance in both sides which does not bode well for the future.
A Britain outside the EU where the government does not comply with the law is hardly going to be an attractive place for people to live and work in or for for businesses to invest.
Given that the government is following legal procedures and appealling the decision in court rather than taking extra-judicial measures I think you're worrying over nothing. The Times leaked the trail this morning that the government intends to put through s simple resolution within one day f the appeal is lost. The presd can moan as much as they want but there is no evidence that the government is acting outside of the law.
That's correct, which is why comparisons to Zimbabwe or Nazi Germany are so ill-founded. The government is obeying the Courts.
He could have won - assuming he doesn't - had he simply avoided being disproportionately gratuitously insulting to women. There are many paths to victory which he could have taken but doing something about his scores with women would have been one of the easiest.
Things like the wall were avoidable, as they were part of his pitch during the campaign. Trump's misogyny is part of who he is, correcting that would require a time machine to change his upbringing.
That's probably true, but it would still imply that *someone* could potentially win the presidency with that policy platform, given a slightly better character than Trump has, and which is is unable to keep under wraps.
I do not think politicians would be so idiotic as to ignore the result of the referendum. But if they were they sure as hell won't listen to several thousand people marching in protest.
Agreed - but for those who are angry enough to protest, at least protest at those who are responsible.
And much of the protest was about making sure the authorities did comply with the law, did not just lord it over the rest.
It is ironic that those leavers who, rightly, criticise the top down attitude of the EU, its rather contemptuous approach to democracy or its willingness to ignore to its own rules when convenient, are adopting the very same approach when the government seeks to do take action without complying with the law.
There is an arrogance in both sides which does not bode well for the future.
A Britain outside the EU where the government does not comply with the law is hardly going to be an attractive place for people to live and work in or for for businesses to invest.
Given that the government is following legal procedures and appealling the decision in court rather than taking extra-judicial measures I think you're worrying over nothing. The Times leaked the trail this morning that the government intends to put through s simple resolution within one day f the appeal is lost. The presd can moan as much as they want but there is no evidence that the government is acting outside of the law.
I think that in substance, the judgement will be upheld - but I think there will be certain changes made to it by the supreme court. I think the issue of 'Revocation of rights' as addressed by the Plaintiff is actually a red herring, and the judgement that 'Rights' conferred by a treaty that has passed through parliament cannot be revoked by plain revocation of the treaty by Prerogative is incorrect and will be reversed. Not all Treaties are upheld in Acts.
But the operative point, that an act of Parliament cannot be repealed (or effectively nullified by) prerogative will stand. The EU Treaty is not like any other, so the arguments will be restricted so that no precedent is set over Treaty Rights in other potential future cases and normal use of prerogative left undisturbed.
And much of the protest was about making sure the authorities did comply with the law, did not just lord it over the rest.
It is ironic that those leavers who, rightly, criticise the top down attitude of the EU, its rather contemptuous approach to democracy or its willingness to ignore to its own rules when convenient, are adopting the very same approach when the government seeks to do take action without complying with the law.
There is an arrogance in both sides which does not bode well for the future.
A Britain outside the EU where the government does not comply with the law is hardly going to be an attractive place for people to live and work in or for for businesses to invest.
Given that the government is following legal procedures and appealling the decision in court rather than taking extra-judicial measures I think you're worrying over nothing. The Times leaked the trail this morning that the government intends to put through s simple resolution within one day f the appeal is lost. The presd can moan as much as they want but there is no evidence that the government is acting outside of the law.
That's correct, which is why comparisons to Zimbabwe or Nazi Germany are so ill-founded. The government is obeying the Courts.
It seems like people are looking for "nasty right wing fascists". Especially that woman who started the court case.
Voters pick up their papers and they read about the rich getting gagging orders, Asylum seekers granted leave to stay on pretty thin pretexts and Iraqis given legal aid to pursue British troops.
For many, I suspect, the legal system of Britain has long since ceased to serve them and their needs.
Now, they may not support headlines like 'enemies of the people' and they may not join marches to the high court.
But they don't really care if either event happens.
The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
To rejoin after Brexit would require the UK to join the eurozone and Schengen, the UK may eventually join EFTA, which it was a member of before it joined the EU but I cannot see it joining the EU again once Article 50 has been invoked and the terms of departure agreed
It would not require Schengen. The treaties explicitly recognise the CTA. It would take a new Treaty - which requires the agreement of Ireland - to derecognise the CTA.
The EU is on an unstoppable mission to become the U.S.E. If we were ever to be so foolish as to get back in we'd be assimilated. Fully. The very grief and wailing and gnashing that is manifest in our Brexit decision is to me fairly solid evidence that we voted to get out at just about the last practical opportunity. A Remain vote would have sealed our future as part of a U.S.E. We'll never rejoin.
I was merely pointing out that wad HYUFD said was factually incorrect. Unless the treaties change, which requires unanimity, then any joiner can commit to either Schengen or the CTA.
If the UK attempted to rejoin I would expect the EU would change the EU would put pressure on Ireland to change the Treaties to require Schengen membership, as Ireland is in the Eurozone it is already pretty enmeshed in the EU anyway
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
The question on the ballot paper wasn't that specific.
Leave means leave no matter how remainers want to fudge it.
And remember I voted remain but in the words of Jeremy Hunt on Marr yesterday 'I was for remain but now I am a democrat'
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
To rejoin after Brexit would require the UK to join the eurozone and Schengen, the UK may eventually join EFTA, which it was a member of before it joined the EU but I cannot see it joining the EU again once Article 50 has been invoked and the terms of departure agreed
It would not require Schengen. The treaties explicitly recognise the CTA. It would take a new Treaty - which requires the agreement of Ireland - to derecognise the CTA.
The EU is on an unstoppable mission to become the U.S.E. If we were ever to be so foolish as to get back in we'd be assimilated. Fully. The very grief and wailing and gnashing that is manifest in our Brexit decision is to me fairly solid evidence that we voted to get out at just about the last practical opportunity. A Remain vote would have sealed our future as part of a U.S.E. We'll never rejoin.
I was merely pointing out that wad HYUFD said was factually incorrect. Unless the treaties change, which requires unanimity, then any joiner can commit to either Schengen or the CTA.
If the UK attempted to rejoin I would expect the EU would change the EU would put pressure on Ireland to change the Treaties to require Schengen membership, as Ireland is in the Eurozone it is already pretty enmeshed in the EU anyway
I doubt it. Schengen only makes sense as an article of faith if you're talking about contiguous countries on the same land mass. The only real anomalies with the present system are that people from outside the EU, whether permanent residents or tourists, don't have free movement between the CTA and the Schengen zone.
I think most people assumed that the result of the referendum would be honoured. I imagine many Leavers are panicking when they see dozens of politicians stating that they will try and prevent Brexit.
The only reason to panic is that they lack the confidence that the majority in the country for Leave will endure. Otherwise just sit back and when the time comes, elect a parliament that isn't going to drag its heels.
The reason they're panicking is that they don't believe the public will stay on their side.
If public support for staying in had not endured following a Remain win, would you have supported another referendum, or some form of mitigation of 'staying in' hitherto un-suggested? Bollocks you would.
Can we possibly have an agreement to end crashingly obvious specious 'arguments' where they're neither needed nor wanted? They're a waste of time to write and a waste of time to reply to. We all know the agenda of Remainers is to delay the process until such time as they can use any economic headwinds to cow the public into accepting a continuation of EU control. We all know the agenda of Leavers is to secure Brexit before that can happen.
Save the oh so clever sophistry for your Aunty Mavis, who might actually believe you, and give a shit.
My expectation is that a Brexit Bill (if such is required) will be the subject of repeated wrecking amendments in the Lords.
One of the first things I was taught as an Articled Clerk is that you never give a guarantee or undertaking for something that is outside of your control. If say, an amendment is passed which makes the invocation of A50 dependent upon the UK remaining a member of the Single Market, then the government is being asked to guarantee something that it is outside of its control. Which makes the invocation of A50 effectively impossible.
That's not fatal. May could ram through a single clause Bill by using the Parliament Act, but it would cause her timetable to slip.
To use the Parliament Act requires I believe two sessions of Parliament. Is there anything stopping May whipping a bill through Parliament the week the Supreme Court rules (assuming a defeat) and then ending that session prematurely and starting a new session the next week, passing it again and then invoke the Parliament Act?
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
In France, Fillon has criticised Sarkozy for wanting to take France back to 2007, and has said that Juppe's government would be a huge disappointment. Some move level cirticsim than previously.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
The legislation didn't state that the referendum was 'advisory'; a government briefing paper did. On the other hand, the government leaflet to voters stated that the government would be bound by the result. For reasons best known to itself, the High Court accepted one as evidence and not the other.
Of course, it's true that the referendum was not legally binding but then that was never the subject of contention. The question is not whether a referendum can override parliament; it's whether a referendum, authorised by parliament, grants sufficient authority to a government to take an executive action using pre-existing, if possibly abeyant, powers that will have the practical effect of changing the law within the competence of the referendum's question.
FWIW, Farage should undoubtedly be offered a peerage. It is a scandal that UKIP have only 3 peers out of over 800, when they won 12.7% of the vote in 2015. There's more than enough precedent for ex-leaders of minor parties much smaller than his to be granted peerages.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
I don't know what the Leave vote meant, except that it meant we would leave the EU. We were offered a number of alternatives to EU membership and I assumed that Parliament would decide which one we would take, subject - of course - to negotiation with the remaining EU member states.
The vote to leave was hugely influenced by controlling our borders and stopping paying into the EU.
Free movement of labour will have to be addressed and also the ability to trade outside the EU.
To those who want to genuinely contribute to the discussions that is a good thing but where that desire to contribute masks a desire to overturn the result, or just cause delays and prevarification, they need to be called out for their duplicity and not allowed to prevail
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
Ockhams Razor: Farage is not as clever as he thinks. He sees a judgment he does not like and goes after the judges. Much like he abuses a Van Rompuy and therefore detracts from the very legitimate and well- founded criticisms which can be made of the system which puts such a resin in a position of power.
Has Farage said anything well thought through about how, precisely, we leave the EU and what precise relationship we should now have?
I think he is pretty firm on no single market membership.
Looking at the Daily Politics clip of both sides' pre-Ref comments on the single market I imagine he is worried that we will stay in it.
As many have said, and given those pronouncements, hard Brexit is therefore the most likely outcome.
But as Brexiters continuously say to Remainers, Leave didn't have a manifesto so Brexiters can't now bleat if it doesn't follow their desired path. Nige wants to have his cake and eat it.
The director of public prosecutions is considering a complaint that voters were misled by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns, in contravention of electoral law.
The complaint about “undue influence” on the referendum campaign has been submitted by an independent group, spearheaded by Prof Bob Watt, an expert in electoral law from the University of Buckingham.
Though most cases require a police complaint before evidence can be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service, under the 1983 Representation of the People Act the DPP can consider cases of election offences when they are referred to her office directly.
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
I don't know what the Leave vote meant, except that it meant we would leave the EU. We were offered a number of alternatives to EU membership and I assumed that Parliament would decide which one we would take, subject - of course - to negotiation with the remaining EU member states.
The vote to leave was hugely influenced by controlling our borders and stopping paying into the EU.
Free movement of labour will have to be addressed and also the ability to trade outside the EU.
To those who want to genuinely contribute to the discussions that is a good thing but where that desire to contribute masks a desire to overturn the result, or just cause delays and prevarification, they need to be called out for their duplicity and not allowed to prevail
When you say "control of our borders", do you envisage leaving the CTA too?
The early voting figures for Florida have been updated. As early voting concluded yesterday, these may be the final figures, but I'm not sure.
The overall Democrat lead is now 87,000, or 1.4% of those who have voted. Also, the total number who have voted early is about 6,420,000, which is more than three quarters of the total turnout in 2012.
Making the usual assumptions, that obviously means that to cancel out the Democrat lead Trump would have to be more than 4% ahead in voting on the day. In 2012 I think the Republican advantage on election day was about 0.7%. The change in the early voting percentages is about 1% in the Republicans' favour compared with 2012.
Or you could compare it to 2008 where Obama had a 9% lead that was brought down to 3% on Election Day. 2012 messes things up as more Dems voted on Election Day because of the shorter in-person. I'll check my spreadsheet when I'm home but IIRC Dem in-person was something like a drop from 1.3m in 2008 only 800K in 2012.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why?
Farage wants two things:
- To have a big stage on which to perform - To bring down the EU
Brexit hinders both of those ambitions. His self-interest is actually in having Brexit overturned, staying in the European Parliament and continuing to foster dissent until, he hopes, the whole thing comes crashing down.
I think that is taking cynicism to an extreme level. If the HOL attempt to obstruct the process I think Nigle Farage will be made a peer and that would be fun
My expectation is that a Brexit Bill (if such is required) will be the subject of repeated wrecking amendments in the Lords.
One of the first things I was taught as an Articled Clerk is that you never give a guarantee or undertaking for something that is outside of your control. If say, an amendment is passed which makes the invocation of A50 dependent upon the UK remaining a member of the Single Market, then the government is being asked to guarantee something that it is outside of its control. Which makes the invocation of A50 effectively impossible.
That's not fatal. May could ram through a single clause Bill by using the Parliament Act, but it would cause her timetable to slip.
To use the Parliament Act requires I believe two sessions of Parliament. Is there anything stopping May whipping a bill through Parliament the week the Supreme Court rules (assuming a defeat) and then ending that session prematurely and starting a new session the next week, passing it again and then invoke the Parliament Act?
I honestly don't know. I'd assumed that she'd wait until the new Parliament begins, next year.
My expectation is that a Brexit Bill (if such is required) will be the subject of repeated wrecking amendments in the Lords.
One of the first things I was taught as an Articled Clerk is that you never give a guarantee or undertaking for something that is outside of your control. If say, an amendment is passed which makes the invocation of A50 dependent upon the UK remaining a member of the Single Market, then the government is being asked to guarantee something that it is outside of its control. Which makes the invocation of A50 effectively impossible.
That's not fatal. May could ram through a single clause Bill by using the Parliament Act, but it would cause her timetable to slip.
To use the Parliament Act requires I believe two sessions of Parliament. Is there anything stopping May whipping a bill through Parliament the week the Supreme Court rules (assuming a defeat) and then ending that session prematurely and starting a new session the next week, passing it again and then invoke the Parliament Act?
Does she have the support of her own MPs for such a thing (see Stephen Phillips)
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
I don't know what the Leave vote meant, except that it meant we would leave the EU. We were offered a number of alternatives to EU membership and I assumed that Parliament would decide which one we would take, subject - of course - to negotiation with the remaining EU member states.
The vote to leave was hugely influenced by controlling our borders and stopping paying into the EU.
Free movement of labour will have to be addressed and also the ability to trade outside the EU.
To those who want to genuinely contribute to the discussions that is a good thing but where that desire to contribute masks a desire to overturn the result, or just cause delays and prevarification, they need to be called out for their duplicity and not allowed to prevail
If we need to delay Brexit in order to get it right that seems like a very sensible thing to me. I don't think those who advocate a quick Brexit because they believe that is the best way to get what they want should be allowed to dictate the process either.
Reported on BBCDP that civil servants are already working on a Brexit/A50 draft bill and that in private the government thinks - despite its bullish talk in public - that losing the Supreme Court appeal is quite likely.
My expectation is that a Brexit Bill (if such is required) will be the subject of repeated wrecking amendments in the Lords.
One of the first things I was taught as an Articled Clerk is that you never give a guarantee or undertaking for something that is outside of your control. If say, an amendment is passed which makes the invocation of A50 dependent upon the UK remaining a member of the Single Market, then the government is being asked to guarantee something that it is outside of its control. Which makes the invocation of A50 effectively impossible.
That's not fatal. May could ram through a single clause Bill by using the Parliament Act, but it would cause her timetable to slip.
To use the Parliament Act requires I believe two sessions of Parliament. Is there anything stopping May whipping a bill through Parliament the week the Supreme Court rules (assuming a defeat) and then ending that session prematurely and starting a new session the next week, passing it again and then invoke the Parliament Act?
I think a new Session would require either a Queen's Speech or a general election. I doubt Her Magesty wants to get drawn into the debate, so my suggestion would be a one clause bill introduced on the last scheduled day before Christmas, they can go home once they've passed it!
Failing that, 50 or 60 new Lords in the Honours list should probably do it.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
''I don't think those who advocate a quick Brexit because they believe that is the best way to get what they want should be allowed to dictate the process either. ''
Presumably you are referring to David Cameron here, who promised to invoke article 50 on day one.
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
Just for clarification do you agree that the leave vote meant leaving the EU completely including the ECJ and regaining control over our borders
The question on the ballot paper wasn't that specific.
Leave means leave no matter how remainers want to fudge it.
And remember I voted remain but in the words of Jeremy Hunt on Marr yesterday 'I was for remain but now I am a democrat'
The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
To rejoin after Brexit would require the UK to join the eurozone and Schengen, the UK may eventually join EFTA, which it was a member of before it joined the EU but I cannot see it joining the EU again once Article 50 has been invoked and the terms of departure agreed
It would not require Schengen. The treaties explicitly recognise the CTA. It would take a new Treaty - which requires the agreement of Ireland - to derecognise the CTA.
The EU is on an unstoppable mission to become the U.S.E. If we were ever to be so foolish as to get back in we'd be assimilated. Fully. The very grief and wailing and gnashing that is manifest in our Brexit decision is to me fairly solid evidence that we voted to get out at just about the last practical opportunity. A Remain vote would have sealed our future as part of a U.S.E. We'll never rejoin.
I was merely pointing out that wad HYUFD said was factually incorrect. Unless the treaties change, which requires unanimity, then any joiner can commit to either Schengen or the CTA.
If the UK attempted to rejoin I would expect the EU would change the EU would put pressure on Ireland to change the Treaties to require Schengen membership, as Ireland is in the Eurozone it is already pretty enmeshed in the EU anyway
So, the EU struggles to get a simple trade treaty through the Waloon parliament, yet would have no problem with wholesale treaty change, solely to annoy the Brits.
My expectation is that a Brexit Bill (if such is required) will be the subject of repeated wrecking amendments in the Lords.
One of the first things I was taught as an Articled Clerk is that you never give a guarantee or undertaking for something that is outside of your control. If say, an amendment is passed which makes the invocation of A50 dependent upon the UK remaining a member of the Single Market, then the government is being asked to guarantee something that it is outside of its control. Which makes the invocation of A50 effectively impossible.
That's not fatal. May could ram through a single clause Bill by using the Parliament Act, but it would cause her timetable to slip.
To use the Parliament Act requires I believe two sessions of Parliament. Is there anything stopping May whipping a bill through Parliament the week the Supreme Court rules (assuming a defeat) and then ending that session prematurely and starting a new session the next week, passing it again and then invoke the Parliament Act?
Does she have the support of her own MPs for such a thing (see Stephen Phillips)
Oh, well that's another issue. If the Commons votes the Bill down, or passes wrecking amendments, then I think we have no option but to have a general election.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
''I don't think those who advocate a quick Brexit because they believe that is the best way to get what they want should be allowed to dictate the process either. ''
Presumably you are referring to David Cameron here, who promised to invoke article 50 on day one.
David who? The lies told by the government and the Leave side in the lead up to the Brexit vote are a very good reason for ensuring that the executive is subjected to maximum Parliamentary scrutiny from here on in.
What I think is curious about Farage and his 'mob rule' comments is how keen he is to go after the judges. Why? All they are doing is interpreting the law in a way that almost no-one has been able to refute effectively. David Herdson tried on here by suggesting that the referendum result was sacrosanct but the legislation for it stated the referendum as 'advisory'. As I think the judges pointed out the government didn't need to do that if they so wanted. Wouldn't it make far more sense to channel anger towards parliament with an elected house far from representative of the people as a whole and an 'upper' chamber that's a law unto its own. But then let's not forget that Farage is himself a member of the political class. Anyone who's read Peter Oborne's polemical book on them will know how often they like to clip judges' wings. Perhaps he is fancying being ennobled by Theresa himself? And maybe the Lords blocking Brexit would be just the excuse to put him there?
Yeah but why the hostility towards judges instead of the Lords. Even IDS has worked out that's where the real battle lies.
Farage probably thinks he can control the masses if he can stoke up enough resentment and fear. (The part of the population that doesn't adhere to his agenda can easily be sidelined and dismissed in disparaging terms: liberal, member of the elite, europhile etc.) And, of course, mainstream politicians, fearful for their votes, will quickly step into line. The judiciary though is slightly different - it's more intellectually robust and fiercely independent - so will need to be targeted by other means. This has been the modus operandi of would-be tyrants throughout the ages.
I see the Selzer poll has the Republicans leading by 3% in the House, which means they should retain it comfortably.
A note of caution about the Selzer poll.
It has Trump on 26% with non white voters. Far far too high.
Trump will poll less than 5% with AA, around 15% with Hispanics and less than 20% with others (mostly Asian and Native Americans).
Sub-samples are quite capable of coming up with odd numbers. I see, though, that 538 have adjusted it to a 4% lead for Clinton, presumably a 2% lead for the Republicans in the House.
Comments
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/746223319595122693
Cue Gadarene rush to deny any connection with Farage.
But it has never in my lifetime been one where the authorities are or are seen to be ambivalent towards protest or riot or civil unrest. Or where a section of society might be genuinely worried about its own well-being and who might be there to offer protection when another section of society is angry.
We shall see how this mood develops, but I am shall we say cautious about the future.
Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
http://www.nbc12.com/story/33645067/poll-clinton-leading-trump-by-6-points-in-va
If the outcome were 44/41, I'd expect Trump to gain Iowa and Ohio, with Florida and North Carolina being extremely tight.
The repubs will probably go for someone like Rubio next time if they lose
But the Trumpers will be lukewarm for Rubio, and the dems will have millions of fresh voters, so he loses in a different way.
Perversely, it suits the dems to maintain the fiction that the repubs still have chance in US elections, to retain confidence in the system amongst whites.
The overall Democrat lead is now 87,000, or 1.4% of those who have voted. Also, the total number who have voted early is about 6,420,000, which is more than three quarters of the total turnout in 2012.
Making the usual assumptions, that obviously means that to cancel out the Democrat lead Trump would have to be more than 4% ahead in voting on the day. In 2012 I think the Republican advantage on election day was about 0.7%. The change in the early voting percentages is about 1% in the Republicans' favour compared with 2012.
We're looking at about 4amish to get a solid feel on Wednesday?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/795599680814120960
It is ironic that those leavers who, rightly, criticise the top down attitude of the EU, its rather contemptuous approach to democracy or its willingness to ignore to its own rules when convenient, are adopting the very same approach when the government seeks to do take action without complying with the law.
There is an arrogance in both sides which does not bode well for the future.
A Britain outside the EU where the government does not comply with the law is hardly going to be an attractive place for people to live and work in or for for businesses to invest.
I'm hedging on all my state pro donkey polls with a good whack on the elephant.....
The trick is to stay sober for the night. I was masses up on 2008; I'd spent all year building it up and then lost my judgement slightly on the night. What should have been a sizeable 4 figure winnings turned into something in the low three figures.
Clinton 45 .. Trump 41
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-the-race-the-day-before-election-day/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)
The reason they're panicking is that they don't believe the public will stay on their side.
Are you planning to put up a prediction map?
Mine is :
http://www.270towin.com/maps/VNjpk
- To have a big stage on which to perform
- To bring down the EU
Brexit hinders both of those ambitions. His self-interest is actually in having Brexit overturned, staying in the European Parliament and continuing to foster dissent until, he hopes, the whole thing comes crashing down.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rX81hzcoxmbTc_gl3qpBnBC6XgBVZebK5KdnCxW0Q4U/edit#gid=0
Has Farage said anything well thought through about how, precisely, we leave the EU and what precise relationship we should now have?
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03/practice-direction-3e-costs-management#Annex C
Clinton 47 .. Trump 43
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/national-race-stands-at-47-43-clinton-trump-nearly-8-in-10-are-prepared-to-accept-result/
That's why he immediately started looking for a role as a kind of roving revolutionary going round Europe stoking up resentment.
One of the first things I was taught as an Articled Clerk is that you never give a guarantee or undertaking for something that is outside of your control. If say, an amendment is passed which makes the invocation of A50 dependent upon the UK remaining a member of the Single Market, then the government is being asked to guarantee something that it is outside of its control. Which makes the invocation of A50 effectively impossible.
That's not fatal. May could ram through a single clause Bill by using the Parliament Act, but it would cause her timetable to slip.
Agreed - but for those who are angry enough to protest, at least protest at those who are responsible.
But the operative point, that an act of Parliament cannot be repealed (or effectively nullified by) prerogative will stand. The EU Treaty is not like any other, so the arguments will be restricted so that no precedent is set over Treaty Rights in other potential future cases and normal use of prerogative left undisturbed.
For many, I suspect, the legal system of Britain has long since ceased to serve them and their needs.
Now, they may not support headlines like 'enemies of the people' and they may not join marches to the high court.
But they don't really care if either event happens.
And remember I voted remain but in the words of Jeremy Hunt on Marr yesterday 'I was for remain but now I am a democrat'
L2 Data @L2political 1h1 hour ago Baltimore, MD
Early Voter Turnout in Battleground States OH, PA, AZ, NC, FL, WI, GA, NV and more… >>> http://www.l2political.com/blog/2016/11/07/early-voter-turnout-in-battleground-states-oh-pa-az-nc-fl-wi-ga-nv-and-more/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/03/rupert-murdoch-nigel-farage-and-dr-liam-fox-meet-at-a-garden-par/
IBD/TIPP is weird. They have Trump at 43% in the four-way, but 42% in the two-way? He loses support with fewer candidates asked? Weird.
Can we possibly have an agreement to end crashingly obvious specious 'arguments' where they're neither needed nor wanted? They're a waste of time to write and a waste of time to reply to. We all know the agenda of Remainers is to delay the process until such time as they can use any economic headwinds to cow the public into accepting a continuation of EU control. We all know the agenda of Leavers is to secure Brexit before that can happen.
Save the oh so clever sophistry for your Aunty Mavis, who might actually believe you, and give a shit.
I may well just go to bed early wake really early.
I'm four hours ahead of UK, so 7am for me which a little early to be on the drink, but hey ho.
https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/795606523733045249
Of course, it's true that the referendum was not legally binding but then that was never the subject of contention. The question is not whether a referendum can override parliament; it's whether a referendum, authorised by parliament, grants sufficient authority to a government to take an executive action using pre-existing, if possibly abeyant, powers that will have the practical effect of changing the law within the competence of the referendum's question.
FWIW, Farage should undoubtedly be offered a peerage. It is a scandal that UKIP have only 3 peers out of over 800, when they won 12.7% of the vote in 2015. There's more than enough precedent for ex-leaders of minor parties much smaller than his to be granted peerages.
Free movement of labour will have to be addressed and also the ability to trade outside the EU.
To those who want to genuinely contribute to the discussions that is a good thing but where that desire to contribute masks a desire to overturn the result, or just cause delays and prevarification, they need to be called out for their duplicity and not allowed to prevail
Looking at the Daily Politics clip of both sides' pre-Ref comments on the single market I imagine he is worried that we will stay in it.
As many have said, and given those pronouncements, hard Brexit is therefore the most likely outcome.
But as Brexiters continuously say to Remainers, Leave didn't have a manifesto so Brexiters can't now bleat if it doesn't follow their desired path. Nige wants to have his cake and eat it.
The complaint about “undue influence” on the referendum campaign has been submitted by an independent group, spearheaded by Prof Bob Watt, an expert in electoral law from the University of Buckingham.
Though most cases require a police complaint before evidence can be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service, under the 1983 Representation of the People Act the DPP can consider cases of election offences when they are referred to her office directly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/07/brexit-cps-considers-complaint-that-leave-campaigns-misled-voters
Failing that, 50 or 60 new Lords in the Honours list should probably do it.
Presumably you are referring to David Cameron here, who promised to invoke article 50 on day one.
It has Trump on 26% with non white voters. Far far too high.
Trump will poll less than 5% with AA, around 15% with Hispanics and less than 20% with others (mostly Asian and Native Americans).
Well, it's a view.
https://twitter.com/RealBenCarson/status/795590378812571648
I was looking at the graphs for the LAT poll and they seem to have hispanic voters breaking almost 50/50 Trump/Clinton.
I'm not saying its accurate, but those were the numbers I think.
'Wrong kind of hispanics?'
The leave you remainers threatened us with. Out is out. No going back.