Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
Everyone can see that, or at least virtually no one denies it. The intent is however irrelevant to the question of law. The government may have to work a little harder to cross the Ts and dot the Is, if the appeal is lost which it may not be, but it's not beyond them.
And as southam has pointed out, we were already delayed until March, an entirely arbitrary date, the case hasn't delayed a goddamn thing. It may technically manufacture opportunity to overturn, but if the law says parliament needs to vote then so it must be, and they should trigger. If they dont, we will surely get a ge, most probably between parties arguing which type of Brexit to go for. That would indeed probably lead to an actual delay, but there hasn't been a delay yet, and no opportunity to frustrate which the government should not be able to overcome.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
It is, because he lost the big one, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was awful. He just failed big onthis point and time will tell if his failure was good or bad for the country. He told us it woukd be bad, so it'll be our fault if he's right.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
Cameron's reputation is shattered. What will he be remembered for? Surely it is losing the Brexit referendum.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
Shattered doesn't cover it. Vapourised is getting closer. He is to the body politic what smoking is to your lungs.
The judiciary are not our Gods. The government has no obligation to chastise the Press on their behalf.
Some sections of the legal profession have a ludicrously exaggerated opinion of their own righteousness.
Agreed. Fuck the lawyers. Who do they think they are?
The idea Baron "European Law Institute" Thomas was some saintly neutral observer on Brexit was just ludicrous.
People like him - and Meeks - should be ritually flailed with hideously bent cucumbers, then sealed in a Burton beer barrel and sent rolling down the Thames, in the "general direction" of Europe, which they seem to love so much.
More and more the right is the left. It's fascinating to see.
And the reverse. Vernon Bogdanor has commented how left wing opponents of Brexit have dusted down all the old arguments against widening the franchise that were used in the 19th century.
That was a very good article. What surprised me more about that page, though, was the Dominic Lawson piece above it. He took very much the same line - the people have spoken, MPs cannot frustrate that.
Unfortunately Tim 'Fallon' didn't seem to read it...
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
All political careers end in failure, Cameron's ended in spectacular failure. Hard cheese for Dave.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
Cameron had to offer the referendum - it was the only thing that, in the long run, could save Remain. Just as the Scottish referendum was the only way to keep Scotland in the Union.
In a democracy, saying "NO, you can't have a vote on this" is an excellent way to raise votes against whatever it is...
I blame the Lib Dems for Brexit. If they'd had the brains of a goose, we'd have had the referendum early in the Coalition government and Remain would have won.
For many years I have argued that more democracy is what would save Europe. I argued that referendums should be mandatory for European treaties/modifications...
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
I>
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Elected politicians lose that legitimacy when their actions are clearly to prevent a Brexit of any type along the Mohs scale. They are saying their judgment is better than that of the voters. If they think that, then call a by-election and ask the voters to give them a mandate to be a contrarian.
Elected politicians are doing the job they are elected to do. If the voters don't like it they can kick them out at a general election. That's how our parliamentary democracy works.
Brexit cannot be undone without the specific permission of voters.
Indeed. It's also a tricky argument saying MPs lose legitimacy if they were to try to prevent Brexit, since in Scotland lots and pockets elsewhere their actual electors voted against it. Should they focus on mitigating the damage rather than seeking an overturn, futilely? Perhaps, and many are doing that to respect the national vote, but they have make a judgement what is best for their constituents. Our system affords MPs a lot of rope, it's up to them if they use that freedom to hang themselves
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
Shattered doesn't cover it. Vapourised is getting closer. He is to the body politic what smoking is to your lungs.
You guys seem to be losing perspective. I am off to watch Hameed bat.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
Looks like Donald is softening his stance against the Clintons;
They'll probably all be BFF's by the Holidays!
Quite possibly - they were before. Trump is a flexible fellow, and what he's said before is NO guide to what he'll do next. Angry Rust Belt voters, Putin, liberals and everyone else should avoid assuming anything. America has simply rolled the dice.
That said, it's having effects on confidence. A friend who is moving abroad for other reasons and was about to let her house to a Guatemalan family (legal long-term US residents) has had them pull out because they feel they had better not make any commitments "because we might be thrown out by Mr Trump".
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
Cameron's reputation is shattered. What will he be remembered for? Surely it is losing the Brexit referendum.
Yes, but that doesn't mean if one thinks he was good up to them that that good is erased from the record. Of course, not all think he was good in the first place.
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
"It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must." Boris Johnson, the chief Brexiteer argued the case for voting Leave, then getting a better deal from the EU.
If the EU wishes to offer us a better deal then the People have the right to change their mind.
But no one apart from them has the right to do so.
Looks like Donald is softening his stance against the Clintons;
They'll probably all be BFF's by the Holidays!
Quite possibly - they were before. Trump is a flexible fellow, and what he's said before is NO guide to what he'll do next. Angry Rust Belt voters, Putin, liberals and everyone else should avoid assuming anything. America has simply rolled the dice.
That said, it's having effects on confidence. A friend who is moving abroad for other reasons and was about to let her house to a Guatemalan family (legal long-term US residents) has had them pull out because they feel they had better not make any commitments "because we might be thrown out by Mr Trump".
Contemptible friends you have. Charming behaviour.. Correction I misread your post.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
1) The judges of the Supreme Court are so upset by the actions of some newspapers that they will deliver their judgment based on that, rather than the law 2) They might be so ticked off that they start a political war with the government, by making up a judgement that attacks the government. 3) He denies that there are those in parliament would have explicitly stated their aim to use the Article 50 vote to stop Leave.
Quite apart from anything - why does he have such a venomous hatred of the Supreme Court? He appears to believe that they are thin skinned politicians, not judges doing their utmost to be impartial and judge a case according to the law.
In fact if you take his argument at face value, he is saying that the Supreme Court has moved out of the legal area and regards itself as a rival to the Executive. Something which hasn't happened in the USA, despite the efforts of all and sundry to politicise it.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
No it isn't. Objectively Brexit is the biggest self inflicted policy defest since Suez.
Just popped back to say great 6 from Hameed and you are talking absolute bollocks Brexit will (against my own voting ) will prove to be a great victory.
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
"It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must." Boris Johnson, the chief Brexiteer argued the case for voting Leave, then getting a better deal from the EU.
If the EU wishes to offer us a better deal then the People have the right to change their mind.
But no one apart from them has the right to do so.
It'd even be worth listening to such a deal, though one wonders what would be in it. But sarkozys electioneering talk aside, it would be tactically such a poor idea for them to offer such a deal.
But while I woukd agree with you a new deal woukd be a change of circumstance to justify seeing if he people change their mind, you know as well as i that a lot of people woukd say there can be no reconsideration of the vote, no matter the theoretical change in circumstances.
That said, it's having effects on confidence. A friend who is moving abroad for other reasons and was about to let her house to a Guatemalan family (legal long-term US residents) has had them pull out because they feel they had better not make any commitments "because we might be thrown out by Mr Trump".
One effect of this will be that anyone who wants to stay who is able to get citizenship will, which will give them the right to vote. There will probably be a bit of this in Britain, too: Until now there's been no particular reason for EU citizens to naturalize, and now there is.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
It is, because he lost the big one, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was awful. He just failed big onthis point and time will tell if his failure was good or bad for the country. He told us it woukd be bad, so it'll be our fault if he's right.
He kept the plates spinning in a vaguely competent way, during difficult times, and arguably had the ideal leadership characteristics to make a reasonable go of the coalition.
But most of the principal changes that would make it into his list are either down to the LibDems (equal marriage, pension freedom, tax allowances, a bit of localism) or haven't worked out too well (the Referendum, benefit reform, NHS reorg, Libya) with a few, such as the schools changes, where you might argue the jury is still out.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
Shattered doesn't cover it. Vapourised is getting closer. He is to the body politic what smoking is to your lungs.
That metaphor may not survive our post truth times.
"Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill."
That said, it's having effects on confidence. A friend who is moving abroad for other reasons and was about to let her house to a Guatemalan family (legal long-term US residents) has had them pull out because they feel they had better not make any commitments "because we might be thrown out by Mr Trump".
One effect of this will be that anyone who wants to stay who is able to get citizenship will, which will give them the right to vote. There will probably be a bit of this in Britain, too: Until now there's been no particular reason for EU citizens to naturalize, and now there is.
1) The judges of the Supreme Court are so upset by the actions of some newspapers that they will deliver their judgment based on that, rather than the law 2) They might be so ticked off that they start a political war with the government, by making up a judgement that attacks the government. 3) He denies that there are those in parliament would have explicitly stated their aim to use the Article 50 vote to stop Leave.
Quite apart from anything - why does he have such a venomous hatred of the Supreme Court? He appears to believe that they are thin skinned politicians, not judges doing their utmost to be impartial and judge a case according to the law.
In fact if you take his argument at face value, he is saying that the Supreme Court has moved out of the legal area and regards itself as a rival to the Executive. Something which hasn't happened in the USA, despite the efforts of all and sundry to politicise it.
and reviews the case histories of the various justices.
I intend doing precisely that, time permitting.
As to your earlier assertions, you have wildly misread what I am saying. I would not accept a single one of your assertions as to what you imagine I think.
Mr. Jonathan, such comments make me think some Remain voters are like a half-boiled frog who leap from the water in the nick of time and then proceed to complain about how chilly it is.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
No it isn't. Objectively Brexit is the biggest self inflicted policy defest since Suez.
Just popped back to say great 6 from Hameed and you are talking absolute bollocks Brexit will (against my own voting ) will prove to be a great victory.
This is not about Brexit. This is about Camerons govt and the failure of his policy to remain.
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
Impression is of a government playing for time. But, there is a relevant point about needing to build up capacity within the civil service to enter in to such a negotiation process. That point should not be overlooked.
The longer this meanders in to the long grass the more problems there are. The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result. That is what people are so understandably angry about.
Grim as it is for us remainers, the result has to be implemented and soon. There has to be a direct correlation between the referendum result and the process of leaving the EU. I don't think there is any meaningful 'soft brexit' option either. We are either in or out.
Its amazing. The 25% or so of people who were politically maligned for years for being obsessed about the EU have basically won and taken over the country. The dynamics of this situation are such that if you voted leave in the hope of a liberal/EEA type solution, i'm afraid to say that you've been totally and completely played. We're leaving, our relationship with the continent is going to change forever, and in the short term at least its going to be brutal.
"The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result." How do you know that?
That's what Cameron said he would do, to try and make it impossible for leave to win. But people voted to leave anyway.
What is $120 as a percentage of what that bottom 20% actually pays?
$10 per month is not much even to the bottom 20%, but $2000 per month is a lot to anyone! Then you need to factor in any of the other cuts in welfare spending etc.
It is fairly easy to see why College educated whites came home to Trump. He plansto make them a lot richer.
Looks like Donald is softening his stance against the Clintons;
They'll probably all be BFF's by the Holidays!
Quite possibly - they were before. Trump is a flexible fellow, and what he's said before is NO guide to what he'll do next. Angry Rust Belt voters, Putin, liberals and everyone else should avoid assuming anything. America has simply rolled the dice.
That said, it's having effects on confidence. A friend who is moving abroad for other reasons and was about to let her house to a Guatemalan family (legal long-term US residents) has had them pull out because they feel they had better not make any commitments "because we might be thrown out by Mr Trump".
Contemptible friends you have. Charming behaviour.. Correction I misread your post.
Feel free to apologise. The first time is always the hardest.
That said, it's having effects on confidence. A friend who is moving abroad for other reasons and was about to let her house to a Guatemalan family (legal long-term US residents) has had them pull out because they feel they had better not make any commitments "because we might be thrown out by Mr Trump".
One effect of this will be that anyone who wants to stay who is able to get citizenship will, which will give them the right to vote. There will probably be a bit of this in Britain, too: Until now there's been no particular reason for EU citizens to naturalize, and now there is.
Can you vote in Japan ?
No, I'd have to naturalize. Since there's no dual citizenship I'd have to give up my UK citizenship, which would close off options (both UK and EU, although obviously the latter may not last...). There's not much benefit as I have permanent residence, which gives me most of the same rights in practice, except for voting.
If a populist Japanese politician came to power demanding that they crack down on the British immigrants stealing Japanese people's small-tech-business-founding jobs it would likely push me one way or the other: Either naturalize and hope to limit the damage, or cut my losses and move somewhere else.
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Parliament's role is very clear: it's to legislate and to scrutinise.
It's not to usurp the authority of the executive. It's fine for any elected representative (or anyone for that matter) to argue for whatever they like. It's not fine for the legislature to try and bind the hands of the executive in what is properly an executive matter.
As for the "mandate" the executive can take whatever decision they like about the nature of Brexit, within the tramlines set for them by the People (from whom Sovereignty ultimately descends). The People can then pass judgement on them at the next General Election.
Mr. Jonathan, such comments make me think some Remain voters are like a half-boiled frog who leap from the water in the nick of time and then proceed to complain about how chilly it is.
your bitter moany old frog has saved his life, however
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
And that's why the Government are doing it?
They could have ended the court case last week, but have chosen to pursue it.
To be fair, I think the government is doing the right thing taking the case to the Supreme Court.
I'm actually relaxed about the outcome (or I would be if I trusted parliament not to play silly buggers). But a constitutional point of this significance *needs* to be decided by the Supreme Court not the High Court.
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Parliament's role is very clear: it's to legislate and to scrutinise.
It's not to usurp the authority of the executive. It's fine for any elected representative (or anyone for that matter) to argue for whatever they like. It's not fine for the legislature to try and bind the hands of the executive in what is properly an executive matter.
As for the "mandate" the executive can take whatever decision they like about the nature of Brexit, within the tramlines set for them by the People (from whom Sovereignty ultimately descends). The People can then pass judgement on them at the next General Election.
90% of that is just opinionated assertion, much to be tested out in court.
That said, it's having effects on confidence. A friend who is moving abroad for other reasons and was about to let her house to a Guatemalan family (legal long-term US residents) has had them pull out because they feel they had better not make any commitments "because we might be thrown out by Mr Trump".
One effect of this will be that anyone who wants to stay who is able to get citizenship will, which will give them the right to vote. There will probably be a bit of this in Britain, too: Until now there's been no particular reason for EU citizens to naturalize, and now there is.
Can you vote in Japan ?
No, I'd have to naturalize. Since there's no dual citizenship I'd have to give up my UK citizenship, which would close off options (both UK and EU, although obviously the latter may not last...). There's not much benefit as I have permanent residence, which gives me most of the same rights in practice, except for voting.
If a populist Japanese politician came to power demanding that they crack down on the British immigrants stealing Japanese people's small-tech-business-founding jobs it would likely push me one way or the other: Either naturalize and hope to limit the damage, or cut my losses and move somewhere else.
I'd hate to be a second class citizen but each to his own.
"...Lichtman made another call: That if elected, Trump would eventually be impeached by a Republican Congress that would prefer a President Mike Pence -- someone who establishment Republicans know and trust."
"I'm going to make another prediction," he said. "This one is not based on a system, it's just my gut. They don't want Trump as president, because they can't control him. He's unpredictable. They'd love to have Pence -- an absolutely down the line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I'm quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook."
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
His reputation is temporarily down with some people for the irrational reason that voters disagreed with him , but there's absolutely no doubt that in years to come he will be seen, rightly, as one of the best post-war PMs.
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
My understanding (From reading Andrew Duff), is that the Supreme Court must ask the ECJ - not because the government submits this argument but because the Plaintiff submits the argument that it is irrevocable and the plaintiff case rests upon that fact.
This is not about Brexit. This is about Camerons govt and the failure of his policy to remain.
Almost impossible to judge Cameron’s reputation right now.
(BTW, do you really think quoting an article in The Sun is evidence of the verdict of historians!)
Blair’s reputation has continued to sink since he left power, Major’s has risen from a very low base.
Once Brexit is over, and we can assess its gains and losses, then we may be able to judge Cameon’s reputation.
Re. the BTW isnt the Sun just reporting a wide and reasonably reputable poll of academics that takes place every few years? Hence you can plot the trajectory of how PMs are viewed (in the academic world, including historians, at least) after they have left office. Without checking I would guess Blair was riding high initially and has progressively sunk down the table.
Thank you Mr Meeks for the informative article. This part is what I take away from it. " The Royal prerogative may come out of this case much more curtailed than at present. From the viewpoint of the executive, this would be a disaster on a different scale from having to get a vote on Article 50 through both Houses of Parliament. With this in mind, it is hard to know what the government is playing at."
Our AG and his advisors are clearly not very good at chess. Nor is Mrs May and the people closest to her.
1) The judges of the Supreme Court are so upset by the actions of some newspapers that they will deliver their judgment based on that, rather than the law 2) They might be so ticked off that they start a political war with the government, by making up a judgement that attacks the government. 3) He denies that there are those in parliament would have explicitly stated their aim to use the Article 50 vote to stop Leave.
Quite apart from anything - why does he have such a venomous hatred of the Supreme Court? He appears to believe that they are thin skinned politicians, not judges doing their utmost to be impartial and judge a case according to the law.
In fact if you take his argument at face value, he is saying that the Supreme Court has moved out of the legal area and regards itself as a rival to the Executive. Something which hasn't happened in the USA, despite the efforts of all and sundry to politicise it.
and reviews the case histories of the various justices.
I intend doing precisely that, time permitting.
As to your earlier assertions, you have wildly misread what I am saying. I would not accept a single one of your assertions as to what you imagine I think.
So who wrote
"The Supreme Court judges will have seen that the government did not defend the independence of the judiciary. Quite apart from the only-human reaction to close ranks, the judges will have had impressed on them again the importance of the checks and balances in the system. If the executive does not recognise sufficiently the need to protect an independent judiciary, the judiciary will be far more inclined to ensure that other checks and balances on the executive’s power are adequate. The government’s studied refusal to put the Mail and the Telegraph in their place may well ultimately prove to be an own goal."
None of the above actually relates to actual law. The press is not party to this - they get to scrawl what they will, subject to libel law... The independence of the judiciary is protected by the independence of judges from *action* (dismissal) by the Executive. What you have constructed is a political argument to make a political decision.
and who wrote -
"Given that it currently seems to have a substantial majority in both Houses in its favour on this point..."
The later is demonstrably untrue for the Lords. In the Commons there are enough MPs who will vote against article 50, plus those who will vote for wrecking amendments to make it's passage very problematic
'any outcome where we are not a member of the EU itself would meet the terms of the Referendum, obviously'
Obviously staying in the single market,making budget payments to Brussels,with free movement of people and under the jurisdiction of the European court would be staying in the EU under a different name.
An almost identical scam to the European constitution / Lisbon agreement.
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
His reputation is temporarily down with some people for the irrational reason that voters disagreed with him , but there's absolutely no doubt that in years to come he will be seen, rightly, as one of the best post-war PMs.
Only if Brexit is a success. Otherwise he will be viewed with disdain for his chumocracy and lack of political beliefs in anything of substance other than wanting to be PM.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
Shattered doesn't cover it. Vapourised is getting closer. He is to the body politic what smoking is to your lungs.
Only shattered among centre left enthusiasts for the EU, who thought history was on their side.
Only if Brexit is a success. Otherwise he will be viewed with disdain for his chumocracy and lack of political beliefs in anything of substance other than wanting to be PM.
That's complete garabge. He has very strong and consistent political beliefs, of genuine substance. One of them was that the EU needs reform. Another was that, on balance, it was better for the UK to stay in than take the risk of Brexit. He might be right, he might be wrong, or something in between, but he fought hard and honourably for both of those aims. He actually made good progress on the first, but lost the second. That was the decision of the British people based on what the Leave side promised. If it turns out badly, you can blame lots of people, but it would be ludicrous, verging on lunatic, to blame the guy who argued so strongly and passionately against Brexit.
I think that there is another issue at stake which goes wider than Art 50 - in that the Justices Judgement was possibly flawed on the issue of 'Rights acquired by treaty'
Any treaty is now put to the house for Ratification, under a piece of legislation passed in 2010. The problem with drawing in the issue of 'Rights' rather than simply revocation of legislation, is that it potentially revokes the right of Crown Prerogative in all cases of treaty withdrawal where a right is inferred to any citizen.
That moves the law substantially, and is where the original judgement rather follows the flawed thinking of the Complainant in the case.
Had the judges stuck to the pure position of 'Implied Revocation of Legislation' then this appeal might not have been undertaken.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
The jury is in on Salmond and Cameron. They're both consigned to the losers' column for all time.
I think it inevitable that there will be some form of civil unrest in this country, and other Western nations over the next few years. The US is experiencing the rumblings now with its Black Lives Matter issues and the protests against Trump. How long before right wing activists get involved? In this country, it's bubbling under the surface after the Brexit vote, and unfortunately I think the government is making it worse with its apparent inability put some flesh on the bones of Brexit. The mood across the Western world just seems ugly at the minute, and something has to give.
For anyone unfamiliar with the Rubin Report - it's got days worth of great content.
I watched this last night along with a number of other long form interviews. Do check out his channel [it's also suffering from that pro-conversative/libertarian YouTube *glitch*]
This is not about Brexit. This is about Camerons govt and the failure of his policy to remain.
Almost impossible to judge Cameron’s reputation right now.
(BTW, do you really think quoting an article in The Sun is evidence of the verdict of historians!)
Blair’s reputation has continued to sink since he left power, Major’s has risen from a very low base.
Once Brexit is over, and we can assess its gains and losses, then we may be able to judge Cameon’s reputation.
Re. the BTW isnt the Sun just reporting a wide and reasonably reputable poll of academics that takes place every few years? Hence you can plot the trajectory of how PMs are viewed (in the academic world, including historians, at least) after they have left office. Without checking I would guess Blair was riding high initially and has progressively sunk down the table.
After all that has happened, you appeal to polls !!!!
What do we know of Woodnewton Associates, who carried it out? What is the sample size? What is the error? How do they correct for bias in the sample?
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
What's particularly amusing about those Leavers who think Cameron was a bad PM is that, by their own logic, the best PM of the post-war years must have been Ted Heath, who had a strong political aim and actually managed to implement it.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Though Salmond can at least take the moral high ground re. an insurgency based on racism and xenophobia.. If that's where we went wrong, I'll go wrong every time.
This is not about Brexit. This is about Camerons govt and the failure of his policy to remain.
Almost impossible to judge Cameron’s reputation right now.
(BTW, do you really think quoting an article in The Sun is evidence of the verdict of historians!)
Blair’s reputation has continued to sink since he left power, Major’s has risen from a very low base.
Once Brexit is over, and we can assess its gains and losses, then we may be able to judge Cameon’s reputation.
Re. the BTW isnt the Sun just reporting a wide and reasonably reputable poll of academics that takes place every few years? Hence you can plot the trajectory of how PMs are viewed (in the academic world, including historians, at least) after they have left office. Without checking I would guess Blair was riding high initially and has progressively sunk down the table.
After all that has happened, you appeal to polls !!!!
What do we know of Woodnewton Associates, who carried it out? What is the sample size? What is the error? How do they correct for bias in the sample?
As the output is subjective and unmeasureable, they probably don't. So you are right that, to an extent, it is a bit of fun. I was simply challenging your suggestion that the Sun had much to do with the findings.
Without Dave we wouldn't have had the referendum. For that I'm extremely grateful. It's metropolitan leftie liberals who despise Cameron for following through with his referendum pledge. They would have preferred him to fudge it somehow and rather than offer an in/out referendum a further in/status quo one. Hence the righteous anger of some of our resident leftists for Dave.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Though Salmond can at least take the moral high ground re. an insurgency based on racism and xenophobia.. If that's where we went wrong, I'll go wrong every time.
Salmond's pitch was strongly anglophobic. Get off your high horse.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Though Salmond can at least take the moral high ground re. an insurgency based on racism and xenophobia.. If that's where we went wrong, I'll go wrong every time.
The Yes campaign was driven by racism and xenophobia against the English. Maybe you find that acceptable in your small corner of the world but in reality it's no different to any other insurgency. Driven by grief and anger against outsiders, in Scotland's case the nasty English who got their pound of flesh for bailing out the country, in Leave's case eastern Europeans who drive down wages, in Trump's case Mexicans and Chinese who are taking all the industrial jobs.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Though Salmond can at least take the moral high ground re. an insurgency based on racism and xenophobia.. If that's where we went wrong, I'll go wrong every time.
#indyref was entirely about xenophobia. We all know what " Westminster " was code for. Though I know accept it looks homeopathic and progressive in the light of Trump and Brexit. But Ybard is too harsh on Salmons who had a currency union to crack. Neither a single 4 year presidential term or EU withdrawal care as big a deal as Scottish Secession was. Given the currency issue and how old and sucessful the union has been to get 44%+ was an astonishing achievement.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Though Salmond can at least take the moral high ground re. an insurgency based on racism and xenophobia.. If that's where we went wrong, I'll go wrong every time.
Well, you have a good point.
I don’t doubt your commitment to anti-racism, and nor do I doubt Salmond’s or Sturgeon’s. But, there is still a whiff of xenophobia in at least some of the actions of some members of the SNP.
And the policy on free tuition for everyone in the EU except the English, Welsh and N. Irish has always struck me as reprehensible. (I personally support free tuition fees, though I would reduce the number going to University)
But, I surely concede the essential point, that the Yessers can take the moral high ground over Trump & Farage.
This is not about Brexit. This is about Camerons govt and the failure of his policy to remain.
Almost impossible to judge Cameron’s reputation right now.
(BTW, do you really think quoting an article in The Sun is evidence of the verdict of historians!)
Blair’s reputation has continued to sink since he left power, Major’s has risen from a very low base.
Once Brexit is over, and we can assess its gains and losses, then we may be able to judge Cameon’s reputation.
Re. the BTW isnt the Sun just reporting a wide and reasonably reputable poll of academics that takes place every few years? Hence you can plot the trajectory of how PMs are viewed (in the academic world, including historians, at least) after they have left office. Without checking I would guess Blair was riding high initially and has progressively sunk down the table.
After all that has happened, you appeal to polls !!!!
What do we know of Woodnewton Associates, who carried it out? What is the sample size? What is the error? How do they correct for bias in the sample?
As the output is subjective and unmeasureable, they probably don't. So you are right that, to an extent, it is a bit of fun. I was simply challenging your suggestion that the Sun had much to do with the findings.
My point is that if it was a serious bit of research, it would have been published in a proper Journal, not The Sun.
It was of course a bit of fun, and so it shouldn’t be quoted as “evidence”.
What's particularly amusing about those Leavers who think Cameron was a bad PM is that, by their own logic, the best PM of the post-war years must have been Ted Heath, who had a strong political aim and actually managed to implement it.
With hindsight, I think Cameron was better than average. I'm certainly not unhappy that he gave us the Referendum and Leave won.
The real feeling of betrayal comes from orange book liberals and Blairites, who expected Cameron to crush euroscepticism for good.
"In this country, it's bubbling under the surface after the Brexit vote, and unfortunately I think the government is making it worse with its apparent inability put some flesh on the bones of Brexit. "
Mr. Stopper, as I have pointed out before, it is most unreasonable to expect HMG to expound a detailed position of its ideas for Brexit at such short notice. Leaving the EU will be the most complex issue that any administration has had to deal with, ever. There are so many strands and options to consider and weighed one against another and, thanks to Mr Cameron, no work had been done on this before the referendum. Effectively, because TM did not take office until the back end of July and then there was the holiday season when most senior civil servants would have been away, real work could not get properly going until September.
TM has set a timetable with a deadline of March 2017. Frankly, I think it will be a remarkable feat if HMG meets that. To expect flesh on the bones after only a few weeks is unreasonable. Furthermore, any premature announcements would, rightly, lead to charges of HMG going off half-cocked.
The government is in an unenviable, indeed impossible, position. If they don't speak out until they have thought their position through then they are accused of dithering, being out their depth etc. etc (see posts on this blog for examples). If they were to speak out then they would be charged with being rash, not having considered all the options, etc. etc..
In an internet age everyone expects instant news, fast gratification, perhaps some need to re-learn patience and remember that sometimes it takes time to do a job properly.
What's particularly amusing about those Leavers who think Cameron was a bad PM is that, by their own logic, the best PM of the post-war years must have been Ted Heath, who had a strong political aim and actually managed to implement it.
With hindsight, I think Cameron was better than average. I'm certainly not unhappy that he gave us the Referendum and Leave won.
The real feeling of betrayal comes from orange book liberals and Blairites, who expected Cameron to crush euroscepticism for good.
The country has never been more divided. His economic policy has been reversed as the Tories find the Brexit magic money tree. He set out to keep us in Europe and failed.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
It is, I'm afraid.
I think you'll find the majority don't think like that, would be interesting to see some polling on the subject.
What's particularly amusing about those Leavers who think Cameron was a bad PM is that, by their own logic, the best PM of the post-war years must have been Ted Heath, who had a strong political aim and actually managed to implement it.
With hindsight, I think Cameron was better than average. I'm certainly not unhappy that he gave us the Referendum and Leave won.
The real feeling of betrayal comes from orange book liberals and Blairites, who expected Cameron to crush euroscepticism for good.
The country has never been more divided. His economic policy has been reversed as the Tories find the Brexit magic money tree. He set out to keep us in Europe and failed.
Apart from that, average.
Yes, I think that’s fair. A middling second. Given his first-class education and degree, Cameron under-performed.
But, I think Cameron did better than his two immediate predecessors, who both had the advantage of enormous Parliamentary majorities.
How little that is permanent has come from such dominance! And most of what has come --- an unregulated City, a Middle East on fire -- has been destructive.
Bill Mitchell Donald Trump Officially Wins Michigan; Voting Margin Less Than A Half Percent « CBS Detroit https://t.co/FXiODNhfPS
So my gut instinct about Michigan - as posted here - was right. I reckoned Michigan might be the story of the night. Not too far off....
This has been the most fascinating election - and it's really now just begun. There's a shed load of deliberate reporting implying Trump is going all wobbly on ObamaCare. He isn't. He's saying they'll keep the bits that make sense - he's said this again and again. But the media are trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.
The fight has just moved on from Trump Can't Win to Trump Won't Deliver You Dupes.
Paul Joseph Watson Isn't funny how Hillary & Obama kept banging on about a "peaceful transition," yet as soon as the riots started they went completely silent.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Though Salmond can at least take the moral high ground re. an insurgency based on racism and xenophobia.. If that's where we went wrong, I'll go wrong every time.
The Yes campaign was driven by racism and xenophobia against the English. Maybe you find that acceptable in your small corner of the world but in reality it's no different to any other insurgency. Driven by grief and anger against outsiders, in Scotland's case the nasty English who got their pound of flesh for bailing out the country, in Leave's case eastern Europeans who drive down wages, in Trump's case Mexicans and Chinese who are taking all the industrial jobs.
Wheeee! A bulging net. It's generally accepted that it was English born Scottish residents and (ironically) EU residents that put No over the top. Strangely not one incident of assaults (or God forbid) murders against those voters/'Enemies of the People' that stymied Yes voters. Your lot won and couldn't resist getting stuck in, evidence of the bubbling rage that still seems to possess Leavers.
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Parliament's role is very clear: it's to legislate and to scrutinise.
It's not to usurp the authority of the executive. It's fine for any elected representative (or anyone for that matter) to argue for whatever they like. It's not fine for the legislature to try and bind the hands of the executive in what is properly an executive matter.
As for the "mandate" the executive can take whatever decision they like about the nature of Brexit, within the tramlines set for them by the People (from whom Sovereignty ultimately descends). The People can then pass judgement on them at the next General Election.
90% of that is just opinionated assertion, much to be tested out in court.
Not really. Perhaps you can point me to the constitutional authorities that disagree? It would be more interesting that surly dismissing it because you're not capable of making a case against.
The only innovation in what I've written - which is the crux of the matter - is that Sovereignty descends from the People. It's not settled as an argument although, in my view, it is trending that way.
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation. .
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Parliament's role is very clear: it's to legislate and to scrutinise.
It's not to usurp the authority of the executive. It's fine for any elected representative (or anyone for that matter) to argue for whatever they like. It's not fine for the legislature to try and bind the hands of the executive in what is properly an executive matter.
As for the "mandate" the executive can take whatever decision they like about the nature of Brexit, within the tramlines set for them by the People (from whom Sovereignty ultimately descends). The People can then pass judgement on them at the next General Election.
90% of that is just opinionated assertion, much to be tested out in court.
Not really. Perhaps you can point me to the constitutional authorities that disagree? It would be more interesting that surly dismissing it because you're not capable of making a case against.
The only innovation in what I've written - which is the crux of the matter - is that Sovereignty descends from the People. It's not settled as an argument although, in my view, it is trending that way.
"Sovereignty descends from the people" is a slogan, not one of the ten commandments.
Edit: A slogan beloved of authoritarian populists of either the left (national socialists) or the right (fascists) but I agree the argument is trending that way and it is profoundly dangerous.
Bill Mitchell Donald Trump Officially Wins Michigan; Voting Margin Less Than A Half Percent « CBS Detroit https://t.co/FXiODNhfPS
So my gut instinct about Michigan - as posted here - was right. I reckoned Michigan might be the story of the night. Not too far off....
This has been the most fascinating election - and it's really now just begun. There's a shed load of deliberate reporting implying Trump is going all wobbly on ObamaCare. He isn't. He's saying they'll keep the bits that make sense - he's said this again and again. But the media are trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.
The fight has just moved on from Trump Can't Win to Trump Won't Deliver You Dupes.
It really is Brexit Mk II.
There is a fair chance that Trump will be a decent CEO for America. He's used to delegating. He clearly put a canny team around him that managed to deliver the Electoral College on less votes than his opponent, which is pretty damned efficient. And he is used to hiring and firing, without worrying unduly whether that might be a bad move because it might upset this or that special interest group.
Or he might just go mad and spend four years blinging up the White House.
What's particularly amusing about those Leavers who think Cameron was a bad PM is that, by their own logic, the best PM of the post-war years must have been Ted Heath, who had a strong political aim and actually managed to implement it.
With hindsight, I think Cameron was better than average. I'm certainly not unhappy that he gave us the Referendum and Leave won.
The real feeling of betrayal comes from orange book liberals and Blairites, who expected Cameron to crush euroscepticism for good.
The country has never been more divided. His economic policy has been reversed as the Tories find the Brexit magic money tree. He set out to keep us in Europe and failed.
Apart from that, average.
Is the UK more divided now than in the 1970's and 80's, the 1930's, the 1900's? I doubt it.
There are real economic problems, but even so, growth at 2.5%, inflation at 2%, unemployment at 5% is not the worst that can happen.
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation. .
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Parliament's role is very clear: it's to legislate and to scrutinise.
It's not to usurp the authority of the executive. It's fine for any elected representative (or anyone for that matter) to argue for whatever they like. It's not fine for the legislature to try and bind the hands of the executive in what is properly an executive matter.
As for the "mandate" the executive can take whatever decision they like about the nature of Brexit, within the tramlines set for them by the People (from whom Sovereignty ultimately descends). The People can then pass judgement on them at the next General Election.
90% of that is just opinionated assertion, much to be tested out in court.
Not really. Perhaps you can point me to the constitutional authorities that disagree? It would be more interesting that surly dismissing it because you're not capable of making a case against.
The only innovation in what I've written - which is the crux of the matter - is that Sovereignty descends from the People. It's not settled as an argument although, in my view, it is trending that way.
"Sovereignty descends from the people" is a slogan, not one of the ten commandments.
Edit: A slogan beloved of authoritarian populists of either the left (national socialists) or the right (fascists) but I agree the argument is trending that way and it is profoundly dangerous.
It's just a development of representative government (albeit almost a reversion to the divine right of kings)
What's particularly amusing about those Leavers who think Cameron was a bad PM is that, by their own logic, the best PM of the post-war years must have been Ted Heath, who had a strong political aim and actually managed to implement it.
With hindsight, I think Cameron was better than average. I'm certainly not unhappy that he gave us the Referendum and Leave won.
The real feeling of betrayal comes from orange book liberals and Blairites, who expected Cameron to crush euroscepticism for good.
The country has never been more divided. His economic policy has been reversed as the Tories find the Brexit magic money tree. He set out to keep us in Europe and failed.
Apart from that, average.
Is the UK more divided now than in the 1970's and 80's, the 1930's, the 1900's? I doubt it.
There are real economic problems, but even so, growth at 2.5%, inflation at 2%, unemployment at 5% is not the worst that can happen.
The UK Gini coefficient has significantly gone up both here and in the USA.
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of .
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Parliament's role is very clear: it's to legislate and to scrutinise.
It's not to usurp the authority of the executive. It's fine for any elected representative (or anyone for that matter) to argue for whatever they like. It's not fine for the legislature to try and bind the hands of the executive in what is properly an executive matter.
As for the "mandate" the executive can take whatever decision they like about the nature of Brexit, within the tramlines set for them by the People (from whom Sovereignty ultimately descends). The People can then pass judgement on them at the next General Election.
90% of that is just opinionated assertion, much to be tested out in court.
Not really. Perhaps you can point me to the constitutional authorities that disagree? It would be more interesting that surly dismissing it because you're not capable of making a case against.
The only innovation in what I've written - which is the crux of the matter - is that Sovereignty descends from the People. It's not settled as an argument although, in my view, it is trending that way.
"Sovereignty descends from the people" is a slogan, not one of the ten commandments.
Edit: A slogan beloved of authoritarian populists of either the left (national socialists) or the right (fascists) but I agree the argument is trending that way and it is profoundly dangerous.
It's just a development of representative government (albeit almost a reversion to the divine right of kings)
It seems to be the logical outworking of arguments for democracy (of course, there are plenty of intellectually respectable arguments against democracy.)
@Theuniondivvie All nationalism is regressive, anti intellectual and xenophobic. The lottery win you've just had is Scots choice is now between an internationalist mildly social democratic civic nationalism ( Independence ) or an mean spirited right wing ethno nationalism ( Brexitanna ). It's still poison but you can now frame it as an homeopathic dose. You drink too much. The English are injecting with dirty needles.
There is still time but if we do you indeed go over the cliff you at least won't have to persuade Scots to jump. You just need to debate whether it will be a soft landing or a splat.
I may be overcompensating for having been behind the curve update but I'm now mourning my Britishness preemptively as it seems more likely than not it will die in my lifetime.
What's particularly amusing about those Leavers who think Cameron was a bad PM is that, by their own logic, the best PM of the post-war years must have been Ted Heath, who had a strong political aim and actually managed to implement it.
With hindsight, I think Cameron was better than average. I'm certainly not unhappy that he gave us the Referendum and Leave won.
The real feeling of betrayal comes from orange book liberals and Blairites, who expected Cameron to crush euroscepticism for good.
The country has never been more divided. His economic policy has been reversed as the Tories find the Brexit magic money tree. He set out to keep us in Europe and failed.
Apart from that, average.
Is the UK more divided now than in the 1970's and 80's, the 1930's, the 1900's? I doubt it.
There are real economic problems, but even so, growth at 2.5%, inflation at 2%, unemployment at 5% is not the worst that can happen.
The UK Gini coefficient has significantly gone up both here and in the USA.
Of course those at the top are less bothered.
That's one of the problems (although I think wealth inequality is a more serious problem than income inequality, and it's very much exacerbated by having near-zero interest rates).
It's why I've changed my mind about Inheritance tax, which I used to want to abolish. Rather than have exemptions for assets owned by the wealthy, I'd tax absolutely everything, but at a rate of 15-20%, not 40%.
Bill Mitchell Donald Trump Officially Wins Michigan; Voting Margin Less Than A Half Percent « CBS Detroit https://t.co/FXiODNhfPS
So my gut instinct about Michigan - as posted here - was right. I reckoned Michigan might be the story of the night. Not too far off....
This has been the most fascinating election - and it's really now just begun. There's a shed load of deliberate reporting implying Trump is going all wobbly on ObamaCare. He isn't. He's saying they'll keep the bits that make sense - he's said this again and again. But the media are trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.
The fight has just moved on from Trump Can't Win to Trump Won't Deliver You Dupes.
It really is Brexit Mk II.
There is a fair chance that Trump will be a decent CEO for America. He's used to delegating. He clearly put a canny team around him that managed to deliver the Electoral College on less votes than his opponent, which is pretty damned efficient. And he is used to hiring and firing, without worrying unduly whether that might be a bad move because it might upset this or that special interest group.
Or he might just go mad and spend four years blinging up the White House.
I've sincerely never understood those who thought he's a nitwit. Or Hitler. It's confirmation bias on steroids. Hillary made a good fist of framing him as a scary, unstable, blah blah blah - and so I'm unsurprised by the wailing of 20 somethings who don't know any better. And have grown-up or not in the current weird Safe Space Take Offence Cry Bully culture.
If he was a demagogue with Hitler tendencies - he wouldn't have waited until he was 70 before launching his political career. It's just stupid and childish - we're all irrational, but some irrationality leaves me thinking WTF?
He runs an empire of 500 businesses - a few of which he stuck in Chapter 11 to restructure the debts or that failed. I see that as a pretty good run. As an entrepreneur, he's made a load of money and expanded because he made sure the right mints were on the right pillows.
I am surprised that the Graun hasn't yet been researching the subject of 'faithless electors' and organising a mass write-in campaign.
They have to an extent. The scenario was the deep state dumping what it " knows " about Trump before the Electoral College meets then them electing Pence or Kaine. It seems too much to me. A Democratic House impeaching then some Republican Senators providing the super majority to convict between '18 and '20 seems more likely. Dispatching Trump but allowing Pence to run in 2020 as an incumbent seems a workable trade off between both parts of the establishment.
Comments
And as southam has pointed out, we were already delayed until March, an entirely arbitrary date, the case hasn't delayed a goddamn thing. It may technically manufacture opportunity to overturn, but if the law says parliament needs to vote then so it must be, and they should trigger. If they dont, we will surely get a ge, most probably between parties arguing which type of Brexit to go for. That would indeed probably lead to an actual delay, but there hasn't been a delay yet, and no opportunity to frustrate which the government should not be able to overcome.
Unfortunately Tim 'Fallon' didn't seem to read it...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1966812/david-cameron-ranked-one-of-the-worst-prime-ministers-in-modern-history-by-political-experts/
In a democracy, saying "NO, you can't have a vote on this" is an excellent way to raise votes against whatever it is...
I blame the Lib Dems for Brexit. If they'd had the brains of a goose, we'd have had the referendum early in the Coalition government and Remain would have won.
For many years I have argued that more democracy is what would save Europe. I argued that referendums should be mandatory for European treaties/modifications...
That said, it's having effects on confidence. A friend who is moving abroad for other reasons and was about to let her house to a Guatemalan family (legal long-term US residents) has had them pull out because they feel they had better not make any commitments "because we might be thrown out by Mr Trump".
But no one apart from them has the right to do so.
Correction I misread your post.
So Mr Meeks thinks -
1) The judges of the Supreme Court are so upset by the actions of some newspapers that they will deliver their judgment based on that, rather than the law
2) They might be so ticked off that they start a political war with the government, by making up a judgement that attacks the government.
3) He denies that there are those in parliament would have explicitly stated their aim to use the Article 50 vote to stop Leave.
Quite apart from anything - why does he have such a venomous hatred of the Supreme Court?
He appears to believe that they are thin skinned politicians, not judges doing their utmost to be impartial and judge a case according to the law.
In fact if you take his argument at face value, he is saying that the Supreme Court has moved out of the legal area and regards itself as a rival to the Executive. Something which hasn't happened in the USA, despite the efforts of all and sundry to politicise it.
I suggest as a penance he goes here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom
and reviews the case histories of the various justices.
But while I woukd agree with you a new deal woukd be a change of circumstance to justify seeing if he people change their mind, you know as well as i that a lot of people woukd say there can be no reconsideration of the vote, no matter the theoretical change in circumstances.
But most of the principal changes that would make it into his list are either down to the LibDems (equal marriage, pension freedom, tax allowances, a bit of localism) or haven't worked out too well (the Referendum, benefit reform, NHS reorg, Libya) with a few, such as the schools changes, where you might argue the jury is still out.
"Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill."
http://tinyurl.com/zteg284
'Brexit cannot be undone without the specific permission of voters.'
I'm sure you will be arguing that staying in the single market is still Brexit.
I'm not convinced we can be so certain turnout will be in the 54-57.99% band.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125478749
I'm not betting though - and that market is going to take ages to settle. DYOR. Really.
Whoever does the best research wins in that market.
As to your earlier assertions, you have wildly misread what I am saying. I would not accept a single one of your assertions as to what you imagine I think.
But people voted to leave anyway.
It is fairly easy to see why College educated whites came home to Trump. He plansto make them a lot richer.
The first time is always the hardest.
If a populist Japanese politician came to power demanding that they crack down on the British immigrants stealing Japanese people's small-tech-business-founding jobs it would likely push me one way or the other: Either naturalize and hope to limit the damage, or cut my losses and move somewhere else.
It's not to usurp the authority of the executive. It's fine for any elected representative (or anyone for that matter) to argue for whatever they like. It's not fine for the legislature to try and bind the hands of the executive in what is properly an executive matter.
As for the "mandate" the executive can take whatever decision they like about the nature of Brexit, within the tramlines set for them by the People (from whom Sovereignty ultimately descends). The People can then pass judgement on them at the next General Election.
I'm actually relaxed about the outcome (or I would be if I trusted parliament not to play silly buggers). But a constitutional point of this significance *needs* to be decided by the Supreme Court not the High Court.
"I'm going to make another prediction," he said. "This one is not based on a system, it's just my gut. They don't want Trump as president, because they can't control him. He's unpredictable. They'd love to have Pence -- an absolutely down the line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I'm quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-prediction-professor-allan-lichtman-president-elect-impeached-a7412451.html
(BTW, do you really think quoting an article in The Sun is evidence of the verdict of historians!)
Blair’s reputation has continued to sink since he left power, Major’s has risen from a very low base.
Once Brexit is over, and we can assess its gains and losses, then we may be able to judge Cameon’s reputation.
Our AG and his advisors are clearly not very good at chess. Nor is Mrs May and the people closest to her.
"The Supreme Court judges will have seen that the government did not defend the independence of the judiciary. Quite apart from the only-human reaction to close ranks, the judges will have had impressed on them again the importance of the checks and balances in the system. If the executive does not recognise sufficiently the need to protect an independent judiciary, the judiciary will be far more inclined to ensure that other checks and balances on the executive’s power are adequate. The government’s studied refusal to put the Mail and the Telegraph in their place may well ultimately prove to be an own goal."
None of the above actually relates to actual law. The press is not party to this - they get to scrawl what they will, subject to libel law... The independence of the judiciary is protected by the independence of judges from *action* (dismissal) by the Executive. What you have constructed is a political argument to make a political decision.
and who wrote -
"Given that it currently seems to have a substantial majority in both Houses in its favour on this point..."
The later is demonstrably untrue for the Lords. In the Commons there are enough MPs who will vote against article 50, plus those who will vote for wrecking amendments to make it's passage very problematic
'any outcome where we are not a member of the EU itself would meet the terms of the Referendum, obviously'
Obviously staying in the single market,making budget payments to Brussels,with free movement of people and under the jurisdiction of the European court would be staying in the EU under a different name.
An almost identical scam to the European constitution / Lisbon agreement.
The rest is May dithering outside her zone of competence.
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Any treaty is now put to the house for Ratification, under a piece of legislation passed in 2010. The problem with drawing in the issue of 'Rights' rather than simply revocation of legislation, is that it potentially revokes the right of Crown Prerogative in all cases of treaty withdrawal where a right is inferred to any citizen.
That moves the law substantially, and is where the original judgement rather follows the flawed thinking of the Complainant in the case.
Had the judges stuck to the pure position of 'Implied Revocation of Legislation' then this appeal might not have been undertaken.
Is the British weather always this crap in November?
In this country, it's bubbling under the surface after the Brexit vote, and unfortunately I think the government is making it worse with its apparent inability put some flesh on the bones of Brexit. The mood across the Western world just seems ugly at the minute, and something has to give.
I watched this last night along with a number of other long form interviews. Do check out his channel [it's also suffering from that pro-conversative/libertarian YouTube *glitch*]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AMV6SLT9KI&index=9&list=PLEbhOtC9klbBR3q4AO9AdVjeC9r5RyZFP
What do we know of Woodnewton Associates, who carried it out? What is the sample size? What is the error? How do they correct for bias in the sample?
I don’t doubt your commitment to anti-racism, and nor do I doubt Salmond’s or Sturgeon’s. But, there is still a whiff of xenophobia in at least some of the actions of some members of the SNP.
And the policy on free tuition for everyone in the EU except the English, Welsh and N. Irish has always struck me as reprehensible. (I personally support free tuition fees, though I would reduce the number going to University)
But, I surely concede the essential point, that the Yessers can take the moral high ground over Trump & Farage.
It was of course a bit of fun, and so it shouldn’t be quoted as “evidence”.
The real feeling of betrayal comes from orange book liberals and Blairites, who expected Cameron to crush euroscepticism for good.
Mr. Stopper, as I have pointed out before, it is most unreasonable to expect HMG to expound a detailed position of its ideas for Brexit at such short notice. Leaving the EU will be the most complex issue that any administration has had to deal with, ever. There are so many strands and options to consider and weighed one against another and, thanks to Mr Cameron, no work had been done on this before the referendum. Effectively, because TM did not take office until the back end of July and then there was the holiday season when most senior civil servants would have been away, real work could not get properly going until September.
TM has set a timetable with a deadline of March 2017. Frankly, I think it will be a remarkable feat if HMG meets that. To expect flesh on the bones after only a few weeks is unreasonable. Furthermore, any premature announcements would, rightly, lead to charges of HMG going off half-cocked.
The government is in an unenviable, indeed impossible, position. If they don't speak out until they have thought their position through then they are accused of dithering, being out their depth etc. etc (see posts on this blog for examples). If they were to speak out then they would be charged with being rash, not having considered all the options, etc. etc..
In an internet age everyone expects instant news, fast gratification, perhaps some need to re-learn patience and remember that sometimes it takes time to do a job properly.
Apart from that, average.
Donald Trump Officially Wins Michigan; Voting Margin Less Than A Half Percent « CBS Detroit https://t.co/FXiODNhfPS
But, I think Cameron did better than his two immediate predecessors, who both had the advantage of enormous Parliamentary majorities.
How little that is permanent has come from such dominance! And most of what has come --- an unregulated City, a Middle East on fire -- has been destructive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/11/this-is-no-rerun-of-the-thirties--but-the-world-is-changing-at-t/
The fight has just moved on from Trump Can't Win to Trump Won't Deliver You Dupes.
It really is Brexit Mk II.
Isn't funny how Hillary & Obama kept banging on about a "peaceful transition," yet as soon as the riots started they went completely silent.
It's generally accepted that it was English born Scottish residents and (ironically) EU residents that put No over the top. Strangely not one incident of assaults (or God forbid) murders against those voters/'Enemies of the People' that stymied Yes voters. Your lot won and couldn't resist getting stuck in, evidence of the bubbling rage that still seems to possess Leavers.
The only innovation in what I've written - which is the crux of the matter - is that Sovereignty descends from the People. It's not settled as an argument although, in my view, it is trending that way.
Edit: A slogan beloved of authoritarian populists of either the left (national socialists) or the right (fascists) but I agree the argument is trending that way and it is profoundly dangerous.
Or he might just go mad and spend four years blinging up the White House.
I think turnout will be slightly under 58% at the final count.
I can't see how Trump doesn't end with 306 ECVs
Sorry to duck out of the health discussion yesterday. I dropped by early lunchtime but had a hectic afternoon. I have a much quieter day today.
What is it that has caused you such unease about the state of the NHS?
There are real economic problems, but even so, growth at 2.5%, inflation at 2%, unemployment at 5% is not the worst that can happen.
Of course those at the top are less bothered.
There is still time but if we do you indeed go over the cliff you at least won't have to persuade Scots to jump. You just need to debate whether it will be a soft landing or a splat.
I may be overcompensating for having been behind the curve update but I'm now mourning my Britishness preemptively as it seems more likely than not it will die in my lifetime.
It's why I've changed my mind about Inheritance tax, which I used to want to abolish. Rather than have exemptions for assets owned by the wealthy, I'd tax absolutely everything, but at a rate of 15-20%, not 40%.
If he was a demagogue with Hitler tendencies - he wouldn't have waited until he was 70 before launching his political career. It's just stupid and childish - we're all irrational, but some irrationality leaves me thinking WTF?
He runs an empire of 500 businesses - a few of which he stuck in Chapter 11 to restructure the debts or that failed. I see that as a pretty good run. As an entrepreneur, he's made a load of money and expanded because he made sure the right mints were on the right pillows.
I don't think that's at all true for the UK.
The data has a lag in it, but a quick bit of research will find you something like:
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/620/public/Gini 1961-2014-15.png