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.
Good to see that the govt and CS are now planning for both potential outcomes of a contentious decision. In contrast to the lack of planning done before the vote in June.
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?
Trump will poll less than 5% with AA, around 15% with Hispanics and less than 20% with others (mostly Asian and Native Americans).
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 LA Times poll also has the woman gap at about 4% in Hillary's favour. Chery picking sub samples from cherry picked polls is the short way to the mad and poor house.
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.
Seems sensible - and if another appeal fails and gets the public's pitchforks and flaming torches out then all the better for the mood around an A50 vote.
The Democrats must be really disappointed with the early voting in NC in particular, given how much they threw at this.Looks like a fairly easy Trump win 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.
A UK readmission to the EU would be based on EU ideology, not logic
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?
I do not know the answer to that but the vote was very much predicated on 'take back control' and in some way this must be prominent in the negotiations
Good attitude. Even if we think the politicians are all slimy, greedy, lying and corrupt little shits, doing it only to enrich themselves, it's still important to go out and vote.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
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)
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
I thought Mrs May wanted to bring immigration right down.
I vaguely remember that in 2011 student fees debt was reclassified as deferred taxation and no longer included in household debts.
Am I right and what effect would this have had on the current numbers (I even more vaguely think it was a total of about £20bn in 2011 but would obviously be much larger now) ?
If RCS or some other knowledgeable PBer could help ...
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.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
FL – Early Voting Returned Ballots as of 11/3/16 4,546,033 voters Republican 40.2% // Democrat 39.8% // 17.4% Non-partisan (Likely leaning among non-partisans: 41.7% D // 58.2% R)
How are the Democrats ahead on early voting here ?
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.
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.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
Still, it looks like a 1.4% Democratic lead after probably about three quarters of the votes have been cast, and people can make of that what they will.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
Well, that's what they told curry house owners anyway.
Trump will poll less than 5% with AA, around 15% with Hispanics and less than 20% with others (mostly Asian and Native Americans).
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 LA Times poll also has the woman gap at about 4% in Hillary's favour. Chery picking sub samples from cherry picked polls is the short way to the mad and poor house.
What that means is that despite more women would vote for Clinton, they are not very enthusiastic about doing so.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
She actually said no change on visas
Although Indian business execs will get new fast, bespoke visa system called Great Club.
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.
Nigel Farage top of the list maybe
Enoble each Conservative Party Constituency Chairman whose constituency voted Leave....
Trump will poll less than 5% with AA, around 15% with Hispanics and less than 20% with others (mostly Asian and Native Americans).
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 LA Times poll also has the woman gap at about 4% in Hillary's favour. Chery picking sub samples from cherry picked polls is the short way to the mad and poor house.
What that means is that despite more women would vote for Clinton, they are not very enthusiastic about doing so.
FL – Early Voting Returned Ballots as of 11/3/16 4,546,033 voters Republican 40.2% // Democrat 39.8% // 17.4% Non-partisan (Likely leaning among non-partisans: 41.7% D // 58.2% R)
How are the Democrats ahead on early voting here ?
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.
I think they ended up 88k or 1.3% ahead ignoring NPAs.This compares with a 3% lead in 2012.It is very close.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
FL – Early Voting Returned Ballots as of 11/3/16 4,546,033 voters Republican 40.2% // Democrat 39.8% // 17.4% Non-partisan (Likely leaning among non-partisans: 41.7% D // 58.2% R)
How are the Democrats ahead on early voting here ?
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.
I'm not sure where they get there likely leaning from either.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
She actually said no change on visas
Although Indian business execs will get new fast, bespoke visa system called Great Club.
What is she doing, running an airline?
Though any concessions made she wants to be balanced by Indians overstating their visas being returned more quickly
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?
So stuffing the Lords in the New Year is the easiest way to do it.
The '49 Parliament Act was one of the most contentious pieces of legislation ever passed. Doubly so given that it was pushed through only by use of the equally contentious 1911 Parliament Act against the wishes of the Lords.
Trump will poll less than 5% with AA, around 15% with Hispanics and less than 20% with others (mostly Asian and Native Americans).
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 LA Times poll also has the woman gap at about 4% in Hillary's favour. Chery picking sub samples from cherry picked polls is the short way to the mad and poor house.
What that means is that despite more women would vote for Clinton, they are not very enthusiastic about doing so.
Why do you think the LA Times poll is so out of line with other polls?
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
She actually said no change on visas
Although Indian business execs will get new fast, bespoke visa system called Great Club.
What is she doing, running an airline?
And students, as long as students who overstay are called back by the Indian government and no problems are created if the UK tries to deport them.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
I'm sure all widgets we sell to India will have to be compliant with local regulations.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
I'm sure all widgets we sell to India will have to be compliant with local regulations.
No doubt, but widgets we sell domestically won't though!
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
No - the only problem as far as I am concerned is low skill immigration and those coming to the UK without a job offer. High value immigration needs to be encouraged and expanded from the World not just the EU
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?
So stuffing the Lords in the New Year is the easiest way to do it.
The '49 Parliament Act was one of the most contentious pieces of legislation ever passed. Doubly so given that it was pushed through only by use of the equally contentious 1911 Parliament Act against the wishes of the Lords.
It'd be a really poor solution. Stuffing the Lords with Tories (and possibly UKIP) would unbalance it for every other piece of legislation and lean towards setting a precedent where governments could create their own Lords majority.
If the Lords blocked it, a general election would be a better way to go, to demand an explicit mandate from the people. Invoking A50 would still require an Act of parliament - assuming the Supreme Ct upholds the High Ct's ruling - but the Lords would then be up against even more constitutional convention as well as democratic will, assuming that the Cons were returned. That would be the point to threaten extreme measures if the Lords were still intent on blocking, whether that be hundreds of new peers to drive A50 through, or major reform to the Upper House (or even its abolition in entirety).
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
She actually said no change on visas
Although Indian business execs will get new fast, bespoke visa system called Great Club.
What is she doing, running an airline?
Neat idea. We could save a fortune in admin costs if we just bundled up visas and BA Gold Cards in a single system.
FL – Early Voting Returned Ballots as of 11/3/16 4,546,033 voters Republican 40.2% // Democrat 39.8% // 17.4% Non-partisan (Likely leaning among non-partisans: 41.7% D // 58.2% R)
How are the Democrats ahead on early voting here ?
Things have changed since those figures were calculated on 3 November.
FL – Early Voting Returned Ballots as of 11/3/16 4,546,033 voters Republican 40.2% // Democrat 39.8% // 17.4% Non-partisan (Likely leaning among non-partisans: 41.7% D // 58.2% R)
How are the Democrats ahead on early voting here ?
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.
I'm not sure where they get there likely leaning from either.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
I think allowing only skilled immigration would be a somewhat better way of putting it. More engineers and doctors, fewer Big Issue sellers and car washers.
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.
Nigel Farage top of the list maybe
Enoble each Conservative Party Constituency Chairman whose constituency voted Leave....
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?
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
She actually said no change on visas
Although Indian business execs will get new fast, bespoke visa system called Great Club.
What is she doing, running an airline?
Perhaps calling it the 1% club would be better than Great Club.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
''The only problem as far as I am concerned is low skill immigration and those coming to the UK without a job offer. High value immigration needs to be encouraged and expanded from the World not just the EU''
Mr G. do you understand those people ranting against measures to improve the quality of immigrants coming into Britain? Its a mystery to me.
Could you put A50 through as an Order in Council of the Privy Council, I wonder...!
That was suggested in the media yesterday with Bercow playing a big part apparently
I don't see how that would be any different in effect from what the High Court ruled against. It'd still be the executive in effect annulling legislation without going through parliament (or, to my mind, without going through parliament *again*).
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
No - the only problem as far as I am concerned is low skill immigration and those coming to the UK without a job offer. High value immigration needs to be encouraged and expanded from the World not just the EU
It's ironic that the solution to elite-driven globalisation is actually to have one rule for the rich and another for the poor. There's a Nobel prize going for whoever can turn that into a coherent theory.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
She actually said no change on visas
Although Indian business execs will get new fast, bespoke visa system called Great Club.
What is she doing, running an airline?
Neat idea. We could save a fortune in admin costs if we just bundled up visas and BA Gold Cards in a single system.
I do not know the answer to that but the vote was very much predicated on 'take back control' and in some way this must be prominent in the negotiations
Repudiation of the various treaties that make up the CTA and which date back to 1928 would go down very badly in Northern Ireland and the Republic.
It would also have severe economic consequences for border communities.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
I think allowing only skilled immigration would be a somewhat better way of putting it. More engineers and doctors, fewer Big Issue sellers and car washers.
May your stopcock never break with that view of what constitutes a skilled worker.
Very tricky waters in the UK at the moment. Mrs May coming out well. A Remainer by instinct but accepting the popular vote, Ken Clarke being in favour of Parliament over democracy, Farage doing what he does best (where's the nearest pitchfork), and Jezza having difficulty with joined-up writing.
You can see now why we haven't had a referendum for forty years. Some sections of the populace aren't used to getting their own way. it must be a real culture shock.
The debate should clarify things. Not factually, but as to who is lying through their teeth. Clue ... If they begin by saying "Obviously I accept the result of the Referendum," you'll know a whopper is on the way.
''The only problem as far as I am concerned is low skill immigration and those coming to the UK without a job offer. High value immigration needs to be encouraged and expanded from the World not just the EU''
Mr G. do you understand those people ranting against measures to improve the quality of immigrants coming into Britain? Its a mystery to me.
I believe that a solution to the immigration problem through work permits concentrating on eliminating low skill and no skill jobs would be acceptable to the vast majority in this debate
I vaguely remember that in 2011 student fees debt was reclassified as deferred taxation and no longer included in household debts.
Am I right and what effect would this have had on the current numbers (I even more vaguely think it was a total of about £20bn in 2011 but would obviously be much larger now) ?
If RCS or some other knowledgeable PBer could help ...
You are correct; government backed student loans are not included in the debt numbers. I can't remember the current outstanding figure.
Trump will poll less than 5% with AA, around 15% with Hispanics and less than 20% with others (mostly Asian and Native Americans).
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 LA Times poll also has the woman gap at about 4% in Hillary's favour. Chery picking sub samples from cherry picked polls is the short way to the mad and poor house.
What that means is that despite more women would vote for Clinton, they are not very enthusiastic about doing so.
Why do you think the LA Times poll is so out of line with other polls?
No idea - but IIRC there was a tremendous amount of banter on this site about likelyhood of voting both in May 2015 and June 2016.
The USA presidential election has some horrid voting percentages - 55% on average I think. On the LA Times interestingly it says that 84% of Republicans and Democrats will vote - which is ludicrous.
Very tricky waters in the UK at the moment. Mrs May coming out well. A Remainer by instinct but accepting the popular vote, Ken Clarke being in favour of Parliament over democracy, Farage doing what he does best (where's the nearest pitchfork), and Jezza having difficulty with joined-up writing.
You can see now why we haven't had a referendum for forty years. Some sections of the populace aren't used to getting their own way. it must be a real culture shock.
The debate should clarify things. Not factually, but as to who is lying through their teeth. Clue ... If they begin by saying "Obviously I accept the result of the Referendum," you'll know a whopper is on the way.
Just like any Brexiter who, just prior to launching an anti-immigration rant, would assure the interviewer that they were "a big fan of immigration".
I vaguely remember that in 2011 student fees debt was reclassified as deferred taxation and no longer included in household debts.
Am I right and what effect would this have had on the current numbers (I even more vaguely think it was a total of about £20bn in 2011 but would obviously be much larger now) ?
If RCS or some other knowledgeable PBer could help ...
You are correct; government backed student loans are not included in the debt numbers. I can't remember the current outstanding figure.
PFI liabilities should also be stuck on the books.
When push comes to shove, the Gov't always coughs up for hospitals etc
''The only problem as far as I am concerned is low skill immigration and those coming to the UK without a job offer. High value immigration needs to be encouraged and expanded from the World not just the EU''
Mr G. do you understand those people ranting against measures to improve the quality of immigrants coming into Britain? Its a mystery to me.
I believe that a solution to the immigration problem through work permits concentrating on eliminating low skill and no skill jobs would be acceptable to the vast majority in this debate
Or just have a £2-5k/year immigrant surcharge, raise revenue, eliminate bureaucracy, essentially end low skilled immigration.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
Got my first new fiver. Absolutely rubbish. Small, feels like Monopoly money. Humbug. Whoever thought it was a good idea is a jester.
I received my first one on Friday, which means that our cash spending habits probably aren't that dissimiliar.
I like them. The size will just take a bit of getting used to, and people will learn soon enough how to deal with them when they've been folded (fold them back the other way on the same crease, they then lie as flat as an old banknote).
Could you put A50 through as an Order in Council of the Privy Council, I wonder...!
That was suggested in the media yesterday with Bercow playing a big part apparently
I don't see how that would be any different in effect from what the High Court ruled against. It'd still be the executive in effect annulling legislation without going through parliament (or, to my mind, without going through parliament *again*).
I am no expert but the privvy council may have the powers to permit the serving of A50 according to some yesterday. Also as the defence chiefs were commenting yesterday that the Court ruling could have serious repercussions for a PM to launch military action at some point in the future
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
I can think of an example of one when the government promised us a referendum and then reneged on it...
The weirdest thing about that poll is that despite the Trump lead, it has Hillary ahead in the 65+ demographic, reversing the picture in most other polls.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Be fair... Some Brexiteers explicitly wanted to replace Polish immigration with Indian immigration.
I think allowing only skilled immigration would be a somewhat better way of putting it. More engineers and doctors, fewer Big Issue sellers and car washers.
May your stopcock never break with that view of what constitutes a skilled worker.
If we have a shortage of certain skilled trades then of course we can assign visas to them. Plumbers were certainly in that category, as are nurses and care staff. Doesn't mean we have to open the border to half of Europe's unemployed and unskilled though.
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.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008 as the early vote was under the same rules. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
It's almost like the price mechanism is the best way of rationing scarce resources.
''The only problem as far as I am concerned is low skill immigration and those coming to the UK without a job offer. High value immigration needs to be encouraged and expanded from the World not just the EU''
Mr G. do you understand those people ranting against measures to improve the quality of immigrants coming into Britain? Its a mystery to me.
I believe that a solution to the immigration problem through work permits concentrating on eliminating low skill and no skill jobs would be acceptable to the vast majority in this debate
Or just have a £2-5k/year immigrant surcharge, raise revenue, eliminate bureaucracy, essentially end low skilled immigration.
You could even sell Bona Fide British passports for the right fee.
Perhaps Keith and Mandy had the right idea with the Hindujas
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Yes.
Most of the genteel commentariat-discussariat are falling over themselves to advise (in fantasy land or reality) on how to avoid pitchforkery, but seriously, aren't the elite and political class in this country asking for it? Don't they actually need it up them?
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
It's almost like the price mechanism is the best way of rationing scarce resources.
I think there is an economic theory about that somewhere. Pretty important too from what I understand!
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
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.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
It's good we're having a sort of debate about immigration. People like to make it a yes or no, but clearly there are useful immigrants and not-so-useful immigrants. I assume even those in favour of opening our borders totally might jib a little at unemployed Jihadists from Syria wanting to become martyrs here now that Mosul is becoming a little too hot.
So it's a matter of how we control immigration. Where does the bar go? Most people would agree with Mr G ... Skills, willingness to work and a general acceptance of Western norms (I summarise). Skin colour irrelevant.
But the left prefer to divide it into Saints and racists. I wonder why?
Being my usual shallow self - extra points for pretty women.
''The only problem as far as I am concerned is low skill immigration and those coming to the UK without a job offer. High value immigration needs to be encouraged and expanded from the World not just the EU''
Mr G. do you understand those people ranting against measures to improve the quality of immigrants coming into Britain? Its a mystery to me.
I believe that a solution to the immigration problem through work permits concentrating on eliminating low skill and no skill jobs would be acceptable to the vast majority in this debate
Or just have a £2-5k/year immigrant surcharge, raise revenue, eliminate bureaucracy, essentially end low skilled immigration.
You could even sell Bona Fide British passports for the right fee.
Perhaps Keith and Mandy had the right idea with the Hindujas
Call them social access charges and make them payable after tax. We've just eliminated unskilled migration.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
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.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
Because only democrat counties were open, the total vote on Sunday was still small.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
To students paying £16k per year for their courses and the super rich. I'm not sure the EU would be happy with that settlement. Plus if the PM is willing to accept the Indian Supreme Court as the final judicial arbiter then that announcement must have passed everyone by.
Let's imagine as a thought experiment that there are 76m Indian students who could afford £16k per year.
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Student places are limited. However, if there was that much demand then UK universities could increase the price for overseas students and invest more money into research or lower the burden for domestic students. The could also increase the supply of places, but that's limited by the size of the institution. Increasing prices is probably the best bet.
So no government control, then.
Who needs it?
Exactly!
But we're talking about people who will be paying upwards of £16k (or much higher in your scenario) per year, not those who earn the minimum wage and then receive far more I benefits and tax credits than they pay in per year. Even there a market solution is possible. I refer you to my Free Liberal Party manifesto.
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.
It seems to me that things now are so different from both 2008 and 2012 that it's very difficult to make quantitative comparisons.
There are fewer differences with 2008. The main ones are the Dem VBM operation is much better (because of 2012 where they had to do well), and Dem registration is down. But the drop in registration would only account for at most half the lead fall, but the voters they lost aren't likely to have been motivated early voters in 2008 anyway so the impact is likely even less.
Well, we'll see soon enough - just as we saw what a large rise there was in the Democrat lead on Sunday! ;-)
Because only democrat counties were open, the total vote on Sunday was still small.
Lol amusing that the GOP controlled NC doesn't open their OWN polling places when the urban/democrat ones are.
I guess it gives them a big "on the day impression" that they're winning here.
Or is it because the faithful republicans are all in errm church ?
Could you put A50 through as an Order in Council of the Privy Council, I wonder...!
That was suggested in the media yesterday with Bercow playing a big part apparently
I don't see how that would be any different in effect from what the High Court ruled against. It'd still be the executive in effect annulling legislation without going through parliament (or, to my mind, without going through parliament *again*).
I am no expert but the privvy council may have the powers to permit the serving of A50 according to some yesterday. Also as the defence chiefs were commenting yesterday that the Court ruling could have serious repercussions for a PM to launch military action at some point in the future
I don't really see why the ruling would impact on a decision on military action. The decision was clearly in the context of using to prerogative to take an action that would in effect nullify legislation. Military action wouldn't do that (unless the action was so extreme as, of itself, to result in the deprivation of rights, in which case the country would probably have bigger issues to deal with that constitutional process).
In practice, there is probably already a convention that parliament is offered a vote before military action commences, if time permits, or shortly after it has done, if not. If it isn't a full-blown convention, then it is at the very minimum an expectation that a government would have to meet if at all practically possible.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
She actually said no change on visas
Although Indian business execs will get new fast, bespoke visa system called Great Club.
What is she doing, running an airline?
Perhaps calling it the 1% club would be better than Great Club.
Passports andvisas are for the little people...
Maharajah Club has a ring to it. Nabob Club not so much. They need some branding if they are going to attract the right people.
Comments
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 45
https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2401
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/103/contents
Section 1, para 1(b).
OMG not the 'wrong kind of hispanics' again?
Can;t these people just accept the establishment view that Trump is a racist and a sexist and vote Hillary like we expect them to?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XreYBoIUn7s
The substantive polling of the Hispanic community show Trump in the 15% range.
As is making assumptions about the hispanic vote (or any other vote) based on one's own prejudices.
So in India we're happy to offer more immigration in return for better trading terms, whereas the whole country has only recently voted against doing the same thing for the EU.
Have I got that right?
Despite what other polls are saying.
Come on.
' after hitting a high of £1.39tn in September 2008, it was five years before the total was back at that level. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37873825
I vaguely remember that in 2011 student fees debt was reclassified as deferred taxation and no longer included in household debts.
Am I right and what effect would this have had on the current numbers (I even more vaguely think it was a total of about £20bn in 2011 but would obviously be much larger now) ?
If RCS or some other knowledgeable PBer could help ...
4,546,033 voters
Republican 40.2% // Democrat 39.8% // 17.4% Non-partisan (Likely leaning among non-partisans: 41.7% D // 58.2% R)
How are the Democrats ahead on early voting here ?
Still, it looks like a 1.4% Democratic lead after probably about three quarters of the votes have been cast, and people can make of that what they will.
What is she doing, running an airline?
The '49 Parliament Act was one of the most contentious pieces of legislation ever passed. Doubly so given that it was pushed through only by use of the equally contentious 1911 Parliament Act against the wishes of the Lords.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949
Agreed, and I'm surprised you guys didn't seize on it more.
If the Lords blocked it, a general election would be a better way to go, to demand an explicit mandate from the people. Invoking A50 would still require an Act of parliament - assuming the Supreme Ct upholds the High Ct's ruling - but the Lords would then be up against even more constitutional convention as well as democratic will, assuming that the Cons were returned. That would be the point to threaten extreme measures if the Lords were still intent on blocking, whether that be hundreds of new peers to drive A50 through, or major reform to the Upper House (or even its abolition in entirety).
(0.402 + (0.174*0.582) - 0.5) * 2 * 4,546,033
Passports andvisas are for the little people...
How does the deal she has done control immigration?
Mr G. do you understand those people ranting against measures to improve the quality of immigrants coming into Britain? Its a mystery to me.
It would also have severe economic consequences for border communities.
You can see now why we haven't had a referendum for forty years. Some sections of the populace aren't used to getting their own way. it must be a real culture shock.
The debate should clarify things. Not factually, but as to who is lying through their teeth. Clue ... If they begin by saying "Obviously I accept the result of the Referendum," you'll know a whopper is on the way.
What went wrong,heart ruling head ;-)
The USA presidential election has some horrid voting percentages - 55% on average I think. On the LA Times interestingly it says that 84% of Republicans and Democrats will vote - which is ludicrous.
When push comes to shove, the Gov't always coughs up for hospitals etc
Perhaps Keith and Mandy had the right idea with the Hindujas
Most of the genteel commentariat-discussariat are falling over themselves to advise (in fantasy land or reality) on how to avoid pitchforkery, but seriously, aren't the elite and political class in this country asking for it? Don't they actually need it up them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejmFSN2qBG0
Trump consolidates the base in NC: now 90% of GOP, up from 80%. 59% of whites, up from 53. Winning white col+ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/upshot/trump-and-clinton-tied-in-final-upshot-poll-of-north-carolina.html …
It's good we're having a sort of debate about immigration. People like to make it a yes or no, but clearly there are useful immigrants and not-so-useful immigrants. I assume even those in favour of opening our borders totally might jib a little at unemployed Jihadists from Syria wanting to become martyrs here now that Mosul is becoming a little too hot.
So it's a matter of how we control immigration. Where does the bar go? Most people would agree with Mr G ... Skills, willingness to work and a general acceptance of Western norms (I summarise). Skin colour irrelevant.
But the left prefer to divide it into Saints and racists. I wonder why?
Being my usual shallow self - extra points for pretty women.
I guess it gives them a big "on the day impression" that they're winning here.
Or is it because the faithful republicans are all in errm church ?
In practice, there is probably already a convention that parliament is offered a vote before military action commences, if time permits, or shortly after it has done, if not. If it isn't a full-blown convention, then it is at the very minimum an expectation that a government would have to meet if at all practically possible.
A brief de-lurk from me, looking forward to tomorrow!
I'm assuming those of you betting are aware of this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/exit-polls-under-siege-230847
http://votecastr.us/
Very best wishes to all,
DC
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/06/donald-trump-why-you-should-vote-me/93398970/