Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
I'm surprised we haven't been compared to Carthage after the Romans sowed it with salt.
So will smug California liberals laughing at Britain's Brexit woes take their chances negotiating an exit agreement with the author of Art of the Deal?
Which is what some of us have been advocating for months.
Finally Mrs May gets there. She's a bit slow isn't she?
Sources say they have devised the bill to be "bombproof" to amendments.
Now there's a challenge!
Why the hell are they wasting the Supreme Court's time then. Put the Bill before Parliament and get on with it. Most MPs have said they wont block it.
Who the hell knows. The worry is if the government wins and the claimants try and take it to the ECJ. That woman says she can't leave the house at the moment, I wouldn't want to be in her place if they do try and take Brexit to the ECJ. I can just imagine the headlines.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
The civil service would rather Brexit go away but, if it doesn't, it's a fantastic way to argue for the replenishment of their numbers that had been slashed by Osborne after 2010.
do no planning for the possibility of a Leave vote.
As Dave is entitled to say, "Not my circus, not my clowns"
Brexiteers won. When will they "suck it up" ?
The leaked memo shows that it's stupid to have expected Cameron's government to have come up with a firm plan pre the referendum; as well as it not being their job, it would have been politically difficult if (when) it leaked. But most of all, it's impossible to make a provisional plan that will keep the various headbangers happy.
As the government are now finding.
Many leavers are not as keen on sovereignty as they claimed before the referendum, as we've seen with some of the more ludicrous criticism of the judges' reasonable conclusions in the A50 case.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
Definitely fewer camels.
I blame the lack of an EU subsidy for camel rearing.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do.
Old client of mine used to get a subsidy from the French government to keep a herd of racing camels in Morocco... wouldn't be surprised if the EU contributed...
In other news, the German economy is seriously slowing down. 0.2% growth for the previous quarter. Hopefully just a blip, the last thing we need is for the EU economy to slow down and for politicians to be looking for a reason to lash out at the UK for a domestic audience.
It was an interesting set of numbers: everywhere accelerated except Germany. Given Mrs Merkel needs to face the voters next year, it's probably in our interests for her not to Want to rock the boat.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
I still don't know why HMG worships the prowess of the Big 4.
Well, actually I do. And I know how they operate too, having spent a good couple of years in the advisory practice of one of them.
French polling for the open primary - Juppé falling back but still favoured. Interesting that they model different turnout scenarios:
Very useful post - thanks.
The numbers look pretty settled: a Juppe / Sarkozy run-off followed by a Juppe win. Is there any good reason why it might be otherwise?
Yes.
As the turnout models show, low turnout means more proper LR supporters, not centrists, which means more Sarkozy. It is a more than nominal risk that the people voting (this is the first time) are not the people being polled.
French polling for the open primary - Juppé falling back but still favoured. Interesting that they model different turnout scenarios:
Very useful post - thanks.
The numbers look pretty settled: a Juppe / Sarkozy run-off followed by a Juppe win. Is there any good reason why it might be otherwise?
My betting says not. Though Sarkozy has been closing the gap.
A further terrorist outrage (or a very serious crime committed by refugee[s]) might help Le Pen, but it's still very hard to see her beating a candidate of the right.
Its a small point but I don;t remember Tony Blair spending six months debating the Iraq war, and having a referendum on it. And 17.4 million people voting on it.
But hey, this is just nit picking
Tony Blair won his vote in the Commons (which Theresa May hasn't yet). Both decisions were democratically arrived at and are therefore legitimate. That wasn't my point however. Actual outcomes matter. We wouldn't have the Iraq controversy if Iraqis had said, thanks, guys, for liberating us, Democracy is Democracy and we're going to make a success of it.
If outcomes matter, thinking about how you could achieve them is also important, as is whether the objectives are realistic. Instead of which, for Brexit as well as for our part in the Iraq invasion, we just got and get rhetoric.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
But you've been arguing Team Cameron was right to not work on a Brexit plan.
In other news, the German economy is seriously slowing down. 0.2% growth for the previous quarter. Hopefully just a blip, the last thing we need is for the EU economy to slow down and for politicians to be looking for a reason to lash out at the UK for a domestic audience.
Which is what some of us have been advocating for months.
Finally Mrs May gets there. She's a bit slow isn't she?
Sources say they have devised the bill to be "bombproof" to amendments.
Now there's a challenge!
Why the hell are they wasting the Supreme Court's time then. Put the Bill before Parliament and get on with it. Most MPs have said they wont block it.
Who the hell knows. The worry is if the government wins and the claimants try and take it to the ECJ. That woman says she can't leave the house at the moment, I wouldn't want to be in her place if they do try and take Brexit to the ECJ. I can just imagine the headlines.
Given the phrasing of Article 50 is fail to see how the ECJ could define above the Supreme Court what our own constitutional requirements are.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
I still don't know why HMG worships the prowess of the Big 4.
Well, actually I do. And I know how they operate too, having spent a good couple of years in the advisory practice of one of them.
Management consultants will always recommend more staff being required for a project. Ideally their own staff.
Its a small point but I don;t remember Tony Blair spending six months debating the Iraq war, and having a referendum on it. And 17.4 million people voting on it.
But hey, this is just nit picking
Tony Blair won his vote in the Commons (which Theresa May hasn't yet). Both decisions were democratically arrived at and are therefore legitimate. That wasn't my point however. Actual outcomes matter. We wouldn't have the Iraq controversy if Iraqis had said, thanks, guys, for liberating us, Democracy is Democracy and we're going to make a success of it.
If outcomes matter, thinking about how you could achieve them is also important, as is whether the objectives are realistic. Instead of which, for Brexit as well as for our part in the Iraq invasion, we just got and get rhetoric.
"Actual outcomes matter." Uh-huh. The first tank hasn't yet crossed over the Iraqi border. We haven't even triggered Article 50. But for you it's all done and dusted?
I reckon there's a lot of folks need to go back and get a refund on their crystal balls. GE2015, Brexit, Trump...
French polling for the open primary - Juppé falling back but still favoured. Interesting that they model different turnout scenarios:
Very useful post - thanks.
The numbers look pretty settled: a Juppe / Sarkozy run-off followed by a Juppe win. Is there any good reason why it might be otherwise?
Yes.
As the turnout models show, low turnout means more proper LR supporters, not centrists, which means more Sarkozy.
I would have thought Trump's election would push turnout up, via increased interest in the overall narrative.
Well higher turnout means more supporters of other parties engaging with the primary (which is LR and its official allies). The only other parties' supporters to prefer Sarkozy over Juppe are the FN.
I Note that Carney said that import prices are up 20%. Wherea the IFS today said it was 14%. Carney's BoE said that inflation would be 2% this month whereas its under 1%.
do no planning for the possibility of a Leave vote.
As Dave is entitled to say, "Not my circus, not my clowns"
Brexiteers won. When will they "suck it up" ?
The leaked memo shows that it's stupid to have expected Cameron's government to have come up with a firm plan pre the referendum; as well as it not being their job, it would have been politically difficult if (when) it leaked. But most of all, it's impossible to make a provisional plan that will keep the various headbangers happy.
As the government are now finding.
Many leavers are not as keen on sovereignty as they claimed before the referendum, as we've seen with some of the more ludicrous criticism of the judges' reasonable conclusions in the A50 case.
I have read on PB that the leaked memo was commissioned by Team Cameron ... .Miraculously it is only leaked in the Mrs May era.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
Pasty Scott and Faisal re-pasting anti-Brexit stuff again. Has anyone seen them in the same room?
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
I still don't know why HMG worships the prowess of the Big 4.
Well, actually I do. And I know how they operate too, having spent a good couple of years in the advisory practice of one of them.
Management consultants will always recommend more staff being required for a project. Ideally their own staff.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
that would be the same David Cameron who told us the world would stop spinning, the British Isles would fall in to the sea and Europe would have WW3 if we voted Brexit.
Its a small point but I don;t remember Tony Blair spending six months debating the Iraq war, and having a referendum on it. And 17.4 million people voting on it.
But hey, this is just nit picking
Tony Blair won his vote in the Commons (which Theresa May hasn't yet). Both decisions were democratically arrived at and are therefore legitimate. That wasn't my point however. Actual outcomes matter. We wouldn't have the Iraq controversy if Iraqis had said, thanks, guys, for liberating us, Democracy is Democracy and we're going to make a success of it.
If outcomes matter, thinking about how you could achieve them is also important, as is whether the objectives are realistic. Instead of which, for Brexit as well as for our part in the Iraq invasion, we just got and get rhetoric.
"Actual outcomes matter." Uh-huh. The first tank hasn't yet crossed over the Iraqi border. We haven't even triggered Article 50. But for you it's all done and dusted?
I reckon there's a lot of folks need to go back and get a refund on their crystal balls. GE2015, Brexit, Trump...
It's as "done and dusted" for me as the Iraq invasion was done and dusted for me in March 2003. Iraq turned out exactly as I expected. There were a few slim chances of a relatively benign outcome which relied on the Western powers co-opting members of the Saddam regime. Once Bush and Blair rejected that approach, the die was cast.
There is a similar slim chance of a benign result for Brexit that relies on working with EU partners in a co-operative and, I am afraid rather tactful, spirit. As Theresa May seems to have no interest in that approach the default will go. I can't be ABSOLUTELY certain of Brexit political failure of an Iraq kind, but it's an 80% ? 90% ? probability. No crystal balls needed.
The civil service would rather Brexit go away but, if it doesn't, it's a fantastic way to argue for the replenishment of their numbers that had been slashed by Osborne after 2010.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
that would be the same David Cameron who told us the world would stop spinning, the British Isles would fall in to the sea and Europe would have WW3 if we voted Brexit.
I'm surprised the report is so upbeat
I'm sure Brexit leading to Nigel Farage becoming our most prominent interlocutor with a President-elect who wants to cosy up to Putin wasn't quite what the internationalist Brexiteers expected.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
Its a small point but I don;t remember Tony Blair spending six months debating the Iraq war, and having a referendum on it. And 17.4 million people voting on it.
But hey, this is just nit picking
Tony Blair won his vote in the Commons (which Theresa May hasn't yet). Both decisions were democratically arrived at and are therefore legitimate. That wasn't my point however. Actual outcomes matter. We wouldn't have the Iraq controversy if Iraqis had said, thanks, guys, for liberating us, Democracy is Democracy and we're going to make a success of it.
If outcomes matter, thinking about how you could achieve them is also important, as is whether the objectives are realistic. Instead of which, for Brexit as well as for our part in the Iraq invasion, we just got and get rhetoric.
"Actual outcomes matter." Uh-huh. The first tank hasn't yet crossed over the Iraqi border. We haven't even triggered Article 50. But for you it's all done and dusted?
I reckon there's a lot of folks need to go back and get a refund on their crystal balls. GE2015, Brexit, Trump...
It's as "done and dusted" for me as the Iraq invasion was done and dusted for me in March 2003. Iraq turned out exactly as I expected. There were a few slim chances of a relatively benign outcome which relied on the Western powers co-opting members of the Saddam regime. Once Bush and Blair rejected that approach, the die was cast.
There is a similar slim chance of a benign result for Brexit that relies on working with EU partners in a co-operative and, I am afraid rather tactful, spirit. As Theresa May seems to have no interest in that approach the default will go. I can't be ABSOLUTELY certain of Brexit political failure of an Iraq kind, but it's an 80% ? 90% ? probability. No crystal balls needed.
And I have an 80%, 90% comfort that we will get a workable, pragmatic solution to Brexit. And, perhaps unlike yourself, I have a regular house guest who is on the inside track of what is happening inside Brexit.
The civil service would rather Brexit go away but, if it doesn't, it's a fantastic way to argue for the replenishment of their numbers that had been slashed by Osborne after 2010.
Hits nail on head. Possibly under the "supervision" of Oliver Letwin?
What the civil service want to avoid is running a full government programme AND Brexit. One or either is fine.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
Poor Scott_P. Which of the lies told by Cameron or Osborne are we now to believe - they did Brexit prep work, or they did no Brexit prep work?
Given the phrasing of Article 50 is fail to see how the ECJ could define above the Supreme Court what our own constitutional requirements are.
That is not what they will asked to opine upon
Orly?
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
It is against every judicial rule of the ECJ to opine on national procedures. It can neve conclude "It is illegal under UK law..." other than in answering "It is illegal under EU law..."
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
I still don't know why HMG worships the prowess of the Big 4.
Well, actually I do. And I know how they operate too, having spent a good couple of years in the advisory practice of one of them.
Management consultants are used -- one would imagine -- because the government thinks the civil service is staffed solely by placemen of the previous government; the private sector is inherently better than the public sector; and probably in this case particularly, it can avoid FOI requests (although the court might have refuted that assumption).
Given the phrasing of Article 50 is fail to see how the ECJ could define above the Supreme Court what our own constitutional requirements are.
That is not what they will asked to opine upon
Orly?
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
It is against every judicial rule of the ECJ to opine on national procedures. It can neve conclude "It is illegal under UK law..." other than in answering "It is illegal under EU law..."
It could however be asked if A50 is revocable.
A50 cannot be revoked. But it could be permanent delayed. A unanimous vote to defer it for 500 years would do the trick.
Given the phrasing of Article 50 is fail to see how the ECJ could define above the Supreme Court what our own constitutional requirements are.
That is not what they will asked to opine upon
Orly?
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
It is against every judicial rule of the ECJ to opine on national procedures. It can neve conclude "It is illegal under UK law..." other than in answering "It is illegal under EU law..."
It could however be asked if A50 is revocable.
A50 cannot be revoked. But it could be permanent delayed. A unanimous vote to defer it for 500 years would do the trick.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
I still don't know why HMG worships the prowess of the Big 4.
Well, actually I do. And I know how they operate too, having spent a good couple of years in the advisory practice of one of them.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
that would be the same David Cameron who told us the world would stop spinning, the British Isles would fall in to the sea and Europe would have WW3 if we voted Brexit.
I'm surprised the report is so upbeat
I'm sure Brexit leading to Nigel Farage becoming our most prominent interlocutor with a President-elect who wants to cosy up to Putin wasn't quite what the internationalist Brexiteers expected.
what's wrong with Vlad ?
we've allied ourselves enough times over the years with Russia when it suits us even though our core values are diametrically opposed. The issue here is not about Brexiteers - there are too many views to pin it to a single perspective - but rather the comprehensive failure of German foreign policy to keep it's interests aligned.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
I still don't know why HMG worships the prowess of the Big 4.
Well, actually I do. And I know how they operate too, having spent a good couple of years in the advisory practice of one of them.
Management consultants will always recommend more staff being required for a project. Ideally their own staff.
Infect and spread.
I remember seeing a poster once about consulting. It said that if you can't be part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem.
@Pulpstar If there is a referral to the CJEU (I would put odds of about 10/1 on that), it will be framed as follows:
The Supreme Court will have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is revocable then the government has the power to issue the notice without consulting Parliament (presumably on the ground that Parliament could rectify the matter in retrospect). It will also have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is irrevocable then the government needs to get Parliament's consent. However, it would have been uncertain to some degree whether such notice was revocable or not. So it would be asking the CJEU as a preliminary question whether an Article 50 notice was revocable. It wouldn't be a case of overturning the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court would not have decided the point.
My expectation, however, is that the Supreme Court will find that an Article 50 notice is irrevocable and so the question will not be sent for determination by the CJEU.
The real fun and games would come if the Supreme Court decided that an Article 50 notice was irrevocable, on that basis decided that the government needs Parliamentary sanction for issuing such a notice and two years later someone else seeks to ask the CJEU by a different route whether an Article 50 notice was revocable, at which point the CJEU then found that it was. Can you imagine the papers THEN?
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
that would be the same David Cameron who told us the world would stop spinning, the British Isles would fall in to the sea and Europe would have WW3 if we voted Brexit.
I'm surprised the report is so upbeat
I'm sure Brexit leading to Nigel Farage becoming our most prominent interlocutor with a President-elect who wants to cosy up to Putin wasn't quite what the internationalist Brexiteers expected.
what's wrong with Vlad ?
we've allied ourselves enough times over the years with Russia when it suits us even though our core values are diametrically opposed. The issue here is not about Brexiteers - there are too many views to pin it to a single perspective - but rather the comprehensive failure of German foreign policy to keep it's interests aligned.
It's not my view, but clearly one a lot of the pro Brexit camp are uncomfortable with.
@faisalislam: BUT No 10 acknowledges Deloitte did work on a piece of work for a Brexit plan, commissioned by Team Cameron, before PM May pre DEXEU and DIT
that would be the same David Cameron who told us the world would stop spinning, the British Isles would fall in to the sea and Europe would have WW3 if we voted Brexit.
I'm surprised the report is so upbeat
I'm sure Brexit leading to Nigel Farage becoming our most prominent interlocutor with a President-elect who wants to cosy up to Putin wasn't quite what the internationalist Brexiteers expected.
what's wrong with Vlad ?
we've allied ourselves enough times over the years with Russia when it suits us even though our core values are diametrically opposed. The issue here is not about Brexiteers - there are too many views to pin it to a single perspective - but rather the comprehensive failure of German foreign policy to keep it's interests aligned.
It's not my view, but clearly one a lot of the pro Brexit camp are uncomfortable with.
well no doubt they are balanced by Remainerslike Jezza quite happy to be nice to Russia
@Pulpstar If there is a referral to the CJEU (I would put odds of about 10/1 on that), it will be framed as follows:
The Supreme Court will have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is revocable then the government has the power to issue the notice without consulting Parliament (presumably on the ground that Parliament could rectify the matter in retrospect). It will also have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is irrevocable then the government needs to get Parliament's consent. However, it would have been uncertain to some degree whether such notice was revocable or not. So it would be asking the CJEU as a preliminary question whether an Article 50 notice was revocable. It wouldn't be a case of overturning the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court would not have decided the point.
My expectation, however, is that the Supreme Court will find that an Article 50 notice is irrevocable and so the question will not be sent for determination by the CJEU.
The real fun and games would come if the Supreme Court decided that an Article 50 notice was irrevocable, on that basis decided that the government needs Parliamentary sanction for issuing such a notice and two years later someone else seeks to ask the CJEU by a different route whether an Article 50 notice was revocable, at which point the CJEU then found that it was. Can you imagine the papers THEN?
Just because it is found to be recoverable, doesn't mean it will be though.
My mainly mathematical brain can't figure the significance of your final paragraph.
Is there something lawyers/politicians will have to read into the CJEU finding Art 50 to be recoverable after it has been 'started' ?
Given the phrasing of Article 50 is fail to see how the ECJ could define above the Supreme Court what our own constitutional requirements are.
That is not what they will asked to opine upon
Orly?
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
It is against every judicial rule of the ECJ to opine on national procedures. It can neve conclude "It is illegal under UK law..." other than in answering "It is illegal under EU law..."
It could however be asked if A50 is revocable.
A50 cannot be revoked. But it could be permanent delayed. A unanimous vote to defer it for 500 years would do the trick.
I think the issue is not whether the Article can be revoked or delayed, it's who does it. If the revocation is under the control of the UK parliament that might be OK. Government could proceed on the basis that it can be overridden through revocation later on. Otherwise the issue of who has authority to trigger the Article - parliament or government - is unresolved.
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I’m remanded of the St Paul’s tent village that was 90% empty at night. – Some people just like protesting for the sake of it, rather than something perhaps a little more constructive.
No it wasn't - that was bullshit based on the mail? mis reporting in the results of a thermal camera. Amazingly the tents people were staying in kept the heat in and didn't leak a thermal signature.
@Pulpstar If there is a referral to the CJEU (I would put odds of about 10/1 on that), it will be framed as follows:
The Supreme Court will have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is revocable then the government has the power to issue the notice without consulting Parliament (presumably on the ground that Parliament could rectify the matter in retrospect). It will also have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is irrevocable then the government needs to get Parliament's consent. However, it would have been uncertain to some degree whether such notice was revocable or not. So it would be asking the CJEU as a preliminary question whether an Article 50 notice was revocable. It wouldn't be a case of overturning the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court would not have decided the point.
My expectation, however, is that the Supreme Court will find that an Article 50 notice is irrevocable and so the question will not be sent for determination by the CJEU.
The real fun and games would come if the Supreme Court decided that an Article 50 notice was irrevocable, on that basis decided that the government needs Parliamentary sanction for issuing such a notice and two years later someone else seeks to ask the CJEU by a different route whether an Article 50 notice was revocable, at which point the CJEU then found that it was. Can you imagine the papers THEN?
Just because it is found to be recoverable, doesn't mean it will be though.
My mainly mathematical brain can't figure the significance of your final paragraph.
Is there something lawyers/politicians will have to read into the CJEU finding Art 50 to be recoverable after it has been 'started' ?
My view is that either the Supreme Court decides it doesn't make any difference (no referral) or it does make a difference (must refer). I don't see Alastair's point about the actual conclusion making a difference to the likelihood of a referral.
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I’m remanded of the St Paul’s tent village that was 90% empty at night. – Some people just like protesting for the sake of it, rather than something perhaps a little more constructive.
No it wasn't - that was bullshit based on the mail? mis reporting in the results of a thermal camera. Amazingly the tents people were staying in kept the heat in and didn't leak a thermal signature.
Given the phrasing of Article 50 is fail to see how the ECJ could define above the Supreme Court what our own constitutional requirements are.
That is not what they will asked to opine upon
Orly?
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
It is against every judicial rule of the ECJ to opine on national procedures. It can neve conclude "It is illegal under UK law..." other than in answering "It is illegal under EU law..."
It could however be asked if A50 is revocable.
A50 cannot be revoked. But it could be permanent delayed. A unanimous vote to defer it for 500 years would do the trick.
The person who wrote it disagrees.
Angels on pinhead territory. Either the law of the land is that Parliament has to approve triggering Article 50, or it doesn't. If the Govt. wins its appeal, then Parliament has no role in the process. If the Govt. loses and has to get the approval of Parliament, then Article 50 still gets triggered, because Labour has said it will not block the will of the people, which is to leave the EU.
Once it is triggered, you are looking at some Black Swan to slow the process of leaving. It will happen in 2019. UK politics dictates that it will happen. Anybody getting in the way will be crushed by the voters. That is the practical situation.
Stopping Article 50 is based on pie on the sky wishes. Delaying its implementation, likewise.
Possible legal outcomes are one thing. The practical politics of it, quite another. People had a chance to stop Brexit. That ended on 23rd June, when they lost the argument with the voters.
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I’m remanded of the St Paul’s tent village that was 90% empty at night. – Some people just like protesting for the sake of it, rather than something perhaps a little more constructive.
No it wasn't - that was bullshit based on the mail? mis reporting in the results of a thermal camera. Amazingly the tents people were staying in kept the heat in and didn't leak a thermal signature.
I walked through a couple of times à day. It was a lot quieter in the evenings
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I’m remanded of the St Paul’s tent village that was 90% empty at night. – Some people just like protesting for the sake of it, rather than something perhaps a little more constructive.
No it wasn't - that was bullshit based on the mail? mis reporting in the results of a thermal camera. Amazingly the tents people were staying in kept the heat in and didn't leak a thermal signature.
do no planning for the possibility of a Leave vote.
As Dave is entitled to say, "Not my circus, not my clowns"
Brexiteers won. When will they "suck it up" ?
The leaked memo shows that it's stupid to have expected Cameron's government to have come up with a firm plan pre the referendum; as well as it not being their job, it would have been politically difficult if (when) it leaked. But most of all, it's impossible to make a provisional plan that will keep the various headbangers happy.
As the government are now finding.
Many leavers are not as keen on sovereignty as they claimed before the referendum, as we've seen with some of the more ludicrous criticism of the judges' reasonable conclusions in the A50 case.
I have read on PB that the leaked memo was commissioned by Team Cameron ... .Miraculously it is only leaked in the Mrs May era.
Was it commissioned before or after the referendum?
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I’m remanded of the St Paul’s tent village that was 90% empty at night. – Some people just like protesting for the sake of it, rather than something perhaps a little more constructive.
No it wasn't - that was bullshit based on the mail? mis reporting in the results of a thermal camera. Amazingly the tents people were staying in kept the heat in and didn't leak a thermal signature.
They had no heat signature at all?!
Well quite - absurd.
Not necessarily. It would depend on many things. Believe me, the inside of a tent and the inside of a sleeping bag can have very different temperatures. Thankfully
It's one of these you cannot discount until you know the equipment they were using, the materials of the tents, time of night, etc, etc.
The question becomes what does a thermal camera pick up? AFAIK, it detects the temperature of the surfaces it can see. Why would the outside of the tent fabric be warmer than the surrounding air to an appreciable amount? After all, the idea is for the body's heat to remain close to the body; i.e. in the sleeping bag, rather than being wasted by warming the tent. Then it becomes an issue of the sensitivity of the camera.
It would not surprise me if the one in ten tents that showed up as brighter had heaters or cookers in, which may have warmed up the tent material enough.
It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.
What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.
If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a high vote to ecv ratio.
Obama's vote was very efficient in 2012. A lead of 3.8% translated into a 126 margin in the ECV. A lead of 3.4% for Bush in 2004 gave a 32 vote margin.
It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.
What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.
If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.
Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?
Well, geographically there should really be one "North East" state comprising of ME, CT, VT, RI, NH and perhaps MA. And DE should be part of MD or VA. But that would be disastrous for the Democrats so is never going to happen.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
More realistically, turn Texas blue. If they can do that - and Trump may help - then a lot of their problems go away.
@Pulpstar If there is a referral to the CJEU (I would put odds of about 10/1 on that), it will be framed as follows:
The Supreme Court will have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is revocable then the government has the power to issue the notice without consulting Parliament (presumably on the ground that Parliament could rectify the matter in retrospect). It will also have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is irrevocable then the government needs to get Parliament's consent. However, it would have been uncertain to some degree whether such notice was revocable or not. So it would be asking the CJEU as a preliminary question whether an Article 50 notice was revocable. It wouldn't be a case of overturning the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court would not have decided the point.
My expectation, however, is that the Supreme Court will find that an Article 50 notice is irrevocable and so the question will not be sent for determination by the CJEU.
The real fun and games would come if the Supreme Court decided that an Article 50 notice was irrevocable, on that basis decided that the government needs Parliamentary sanction for issuing such a notice and two years later someone else seeks to ask the CJEU by a different route whether an Article 50 notice was revocable, at which point the CJEU then found that it was. Can you imagine the papers THEN?
The High Court decided that because ARticle 50 is not revocable it would lead to a change in the law and the law should not be changed by government perogative.
Should the Supreme Court decide that ARticle 50 is revocable by parliament then triggering Article 50 does not automatically lead to a change in the law and government can trigger it without the need for an Act of Parliament.
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I’m remanded of the St Paul’s tent village that was 90% empty at night. – Some people just like protesting for the sake of it, rather than something perhaps a little more constructive.
No it wasn't - that was bullshit based on the mail? mis reporting in the results of a thermal camera. Amazingly the tents people were staying in kept the heat in and didn't leak a thermal signature.
They had no heat signature at all?!
The camera was on crappy auto settings (charitable interpretation, deliberately broken settings if you are less genrous) which had no chance of detecting anyone in the tents. The give away was the people outside the tents were not 'over exposed' which they would need to be for the camera to pickup heat from inside the tents.
More than 50 percent of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon, in the days following the election did not bother to vote.
A search of state election records was conducted by a Portland television station which reported that of the 112 protesters that were arrested, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot or were not registered to vote in the Beaver State.
I’m remanded of the St Paul’s tent village that was 90% empty at night. – Some people just like protesting for the sake of it, rather than something perhaps a little more constructive.
No it wasn't - that was bullshit based on the mail? mis reporting in the results of a thermal camera. Amazingly the tents people were staying in kept the heat in and didn't leak a thermal signature.
Comments
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
As the government are now finding.
Many leavers are not as keen on sovereignty as they claimed before the referendum, as we've seen with some of the more ludicrous criticism of the judges' reasonable conclusions in the A50 case.
The numbers look pretty settled: a Juppe / Sarkozy run-off followed by a Juppe win. Is there any good reason why it might be otherwise?
Well, actually I do. And I know how they operate too, having spent a good couple of years in the advisory practice of one of them.
As the turnout models show, low turnout means more proper LR supporters, not centrists, which means more Sarkozy. It is a more than nominal risk that the people voting (this is the first time) are not the people being polled.
A further terrorist outrage (or a very serious crime committed by refugee[s]) might help Le Pen, but it's still very hard to see her beating a candidate of the right.
If outcomes matter, thinking about how you could achieve them is also important, as is whether the objectives are realistic. Instead of which, for Brexit as well as for our part in the Iraq invasion, we just got and get rhetoric.
EUROPE IS DYING BEFORE OUR VERY EYES!!!!
I reckon there's a lot of folks need to go back and get a refund on their crystal balls. GE2015, Brexit, Trump...
Carney's BoE said that inflation would be 2% this month whereas its under 1%.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
I'm surprised the report is so upbeat
There is a similar slim chance of a benign result for Brexit that relies on working with EU partners in a co-operative and, I am afraid rather tactful, spirit. As Theresa May seems to have no interest in that approach the default will go. I can't be ABSOLUTELY certain of Brexit political failure of an Iraq kind, but it's an 80% ? 90% ? probability. No crystal balls needed.
You claim that that there is no Cameron plan but that Deloitte were hired for the Cameron plan. Which was it?
It could however be asked if A50 is revocable.
we've allied ourselves enough times over the years with Russia when it suits us even though our core values are diametrically opposed. The issue here is not about Brexiteers - there are too many views to pin it to a single perspective - but rather the comprehensive failure of German foreign policy to keep it's interests aligned.
The Supreme Court will have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is revocable then the government has the power to issue the notice without consulting Parliament (presumably on the ground that Parliament could rectify the matter in retrospect). It will also have concluded that if an Article 50 notice is irrevocable then the government needs to get Parliament's consent. However, it would have been uncertain to some degree whether such notice was revocable or not. So it would be asking the CJEU as a preliminary question whether an Article 50 notice was revocable. It wouldn't be a case of overturning the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court would not have decided the point.
My expectation, however, is that the Supreme Court will find that an Article 50 notice is irrevocable and so the question will not be sent for determination by the CJEU.
The real fun and games would come if the Supreme Court decided that an Article 50 notice was irrevocable, on that basis decided that the government needs Parliamentary sanction for issuing such a notice and two years later someone else seeks to ask the CJEU by a different route whether an Article 50 notice was revocable, at which point the CJEU then found that it was. Can you imagine the papers THEN?
My mainly mathematical brain can't figure the significance of your final paragraph.
Is there something lawyers/politicians will have to read into the CJEU finding Art 50 to be recoverable after it has been 'started' ?
NEW THREAD
Once it is triggered, you are looking at some Black Swan to slow the process of leaving. It will happen in 2019. UK politics dictates that it will happen. Anybody getting in the way will be crushed by the voters. That is the practical situation.
Stopping Article 50 is based on pie on the sky wishes. Delaying its implementation, likewise.
Possible legal outcomes are one thing. The practical politics of it, quite another. People had a chance to stop Brexit. That ended on 23rd June, when they lost the argument with the voters.
It's one of these you cannot discount until you know the equipment they were using, the materials of the tents, time of night, etc, etc.
The question becomes what does a thermal camera pick up? AFAIK, it detects the temperature of the surfaces it can see. Why would the outside of the tent fabric be warmer than the surrounding air to an appreciable amount? After all, the idea is for the body's heat to remain close to the body; i.e. in the sleeping bag, rather than being wasted by warming the tent. Then it becomes an issue of the sensitivity of the camera.
It would not surprise me if the one in ten tents that showed up as brighter had heaters or cookers in, which may have warmed up the tent material enough.
So no, probably not absurd reasoning.
Should the Supreme Court decide that ARticle 50 is revocable by parliament then triggering Article 50 does not automatically lead to a change in the law and government can trigger it without the need for an Act of Parliament.
They aren't magic.