politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters not totally convinced that Theresa will meet her Artic

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters not totally convinced that Theresa will meet her Article 50 time-table

Betfair punters make it a 54% chance that TMay will invoke Article 50 before end June pic.twitter.com/EyaO01qSvb

Read the full story here

Restharrow

Where would the government find 30,000 little helpers within sniffing distance of Whitehall who are reliably on-message?

Tissue_Price

The three-line bill is sensible though I do wonder about "unamendable".

The problem with Article 50 remains the two-year window. The EU can simply run out the clock on negotiations. Much as they did on the renegotiation, though that was self-imposed by Cameron.

It's an article written by the EU to favour the EU [and as such could be seen as legally unfair, though good luck getting the ECJ to rule that way!]

My preference would be not to invoke A50 until after some negotiations have taken place. Clearly the EU aren't currently disposed to do that so a policy of obstructionism would seem to be in order.

williamglenn

Article 50 can be revoked at any time.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/10/17/aurel-sari-biting-the-bullet-why-the-uk-is-free-to-revoke-its-withdrawal-notification-under-article-50-teu/

edmundintokyo

How do you word a bill to be amendable?

1. We're invoking Article 50.
2. Once we work out WTF to do once we've invoked it.
3. Anyone who votes to amend this bill smells of poo.

edmundintokyo

williamglenn said:

Article 50 can be revoked at any time.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/10/17/aurel-sari-biting-the-bullet-why-the-uk-is-free-to-revoke-its-withdrawal-notification-under-article-50-teu/

That's probably true in practice but legal opinion on this doesn't seem to be unanimous.

DavidL

Probably a pure coincidence because these lectures (if not necessarily their subject matter) will have been fixed well in advance but in the last week my legal news link tells me:

President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, delivered the 2016 Mitchell Lecture in Edinburgh, entitled “Some thoughts on judicial reasoning across jurisdictions”.

Delivering the Sultan Azlan Shah Lecture 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale reflected on the evolving constitutional role of the UK Supreme Court, and the proper limits of that role when compared to other supreme courts around the world.

Finally, Lord Hodge delivered a lecture to the Lincoln’s Inn Denning Society last week on preserving judicial independence.

Are their Lordships trying to send a message? Or are we just getting near the end of the CPD year?

tpfkar

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

TheScreamingEagles

If they take it to the CJEU then I'll laugh like a drain.

DavidL

tpfkar said:

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

I agree. I really don't see how it is possible to have an unamendable bill.

TheScreamingEagles

The way the bill is being hyped it seems to me Mrs May is hoping the House of Peers obstructs Brexit to give her an excuse for an early election.

Richard_Nabavi

I think the Betfair 1.74 or so on Jan-June is a spiffing bet.

williamglenn

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

I agree. I really don't see how it is possible to have an unamendable bill.

Unless the plan is to lose the court case, the appeal and then the Commons vote as a pretext for an election.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

If they take it to the CJEU then I'll laugh like a drain.

I do think that if the government backtracks on their concession that Article 50 is irrevocable (as I think they might) their Lordships may well think that the construction of Article 50 is properly a matter for the CJEU rather than themselves.

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

The way the bill is being hyped it seems to me Mrs May is hoping the House of Peers obstructs Brexit to give her an excuse for an early election.

And then she can say Brexit is on hold until we get through the urgent business of HoL reform?

Blue_rog

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

I agree. I really don't see how it is possible to have an unamendable bill.

Perhaps not but isn't this an area where inter party discussions take place? If May made is absolutely clear that any amendments made to the bill would trigger a general election then would the PLP take that risk?

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

I agree. I really don't see how it is possible to have an unamendable bill.

David, these are the people who also formulated the government's defence in the Article 50 case....

DavidL

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

I agree. I really don't see how it is possible to have an unamendable bill.

Unless the plan is to lose the court case, the appeal and then the Commons vote as a pretext for an election.

Except she will not lose in the Commons. The Lords is and always has been much more problematic. A decision of the Supreme Court that a resolution of the Commons was sufficient would no doubt be grabbed by the Government with both hands right now.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798522061492776960

MarqueeMark

Curse of the new thread. FPT:

williamglenn said:

"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.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If they take it to the CJEU then I'll laugh like a drain.

I do think that if the government backtracks on their concession that Article 50 is irrevocable (as I think they might) their Lordships may well think that the construction of Article 50 is properly a matter for the CJEU rather than themselves.

That would be fun.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

I agree. I really don't see how it is possible to have an unamendable bill.

David, these are the people who also formulated the government's defence in the Article 50 case....

Sigh. I know.

TheScreamingEagles

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The way the bill is being hyped it seems to me Mrs May is hoping the House of Peers obstructs Brexit to give her an excuse for an early election.

And then she can say Brexit is on hold until we get through the urgent business of HoL reform?

If I were an MP, I'd put down an amendment saying House of Lords reform should be part of a wider electoral reform bill and table AV for Westminster amendment.

Scott_P

MarqueeMark said:

Possible legal outcomes are one thing. The practical politics of it, quite another.

Rule of Law be damned, eh...

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The way the bill is being hyped it seems to me Mrs May is hoping the House of Peers obstructs Brexit to give her an excuse for an early election.

And then she can say Brexit is on hold until we get through the urgent business of HoL reform?

If I were an MP, I'd put down an amendment saying House of Lords reform should be part of a wider electoral reform bill and table AV for Westminster amendment.

Brexit itself could be considered a subset of electoral reform. Do we want to continue to send MEPs to Brussels or are we happy that no representation is better than sending a bunch of Kippers?

logical_song

MarqueeMark said:

Curse of the new thread. FPT:

williamglenn said:

"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.

But what Brexit means was not decided by the referendum.

edmundintokyo

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

I agree. I really don't see how it is possible to have an unamendable bill.

Unless the plan is to lose the court case, the appeal and then the Commons vote as a pretext for an election.

Or go back to court and argue over whether the bill is really unamendable. They could string this thing out for years.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

Would only be unamendable if a statutory instrument. But that would require primary legislation first.

e.g. Bill is "PM can invoke A50 when she wants by laying SI before both Houses."
and then the Statutory Instrument is "Do it."

The second wouldn't be amendable, but the first would, and could easily end up as
"PM can invoke A50 AFTER COMMONS HAS APPROVED NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES by laying SI before both Houses."

Not sure how HMG could avoid amendments being laid - surely more chance of simply voting them all down?

I agree. I really don't see how it is possible to have an unamendable bill.

David, these are the people who also formulated the government's defence in the Article 50 case....

Sigh. I know.

Clearly they did pupilage at the esteemed firm that is Sue, Grabit, and Runne.

Perhaps the reason for all of this is because she had no fecking idea of what exactly Brexit means Brexit means in a practical sense.

DavidL

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

I don't agree but that is a very good letter.

TheScreamingEagles

I'll say it now, this bill will be as unamendable as the Titanic was unsinkable

Scott_P

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll say it now, this bill will be as unamendable as the Titanic was unsinkable

It will be amendable. Bigly amendable.

taffys

''I don't agree but that is a very good letter. ''

Mr Gross is quite at liberty to vote liberal democrat next time around. They will be advocating 'going back in'

He clearly thinks he is worth more than one vote, however.

kle4

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/andrewsparrow/status/798504985562583040

Meaning losing the Supreme Court vote would not be that significant - it's almost as though the furore over it is almost entirely misdirected, since the government has many ways to get what it wants to enact the referendum, if it transpires parliament never gave the power to trigger A50.

rottenborough said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/andrewsparrow/status/798504985562583040

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.

Quite. If they have a foolproof way of doing it, just do it. I guess settling the issue of extent of the royal prerogative is felt to be worth seeing through to conclusion.

Scott_P

kle4 said:

If they have a foolproof way of doing it, just do it.

May not be foolproof. See upthread.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

.

.

Sigh. I know.

Clearly they did pupilage at the esteemed firm that is Sue, Grabit, and Runne.

Perhaps the reason for all of this is because she had no fecking idea of what exactly Brexit means Brexit means in a practical sense.

More likely at Delay, Worry and Expense.

There is a lack of grip at the moment.

There are lots of issues in Brexit but its time that some of them were knocked on the head. We have announced we are staying in Europol so that is a start. Clearly we are going to need to stay in some sort of relationship with the European Common Aviation Area. We need to make it clear that those who are here can remain. We need to make it clear that students are still welcome but even in Scotland they might have to pay fees. We need to be clear that our target is a tariff free trade agreement. And so on and so on.

Most of this may just be our position and need counterparty agreement but we need to start putting the framework out there piece by piece.

TheScreamingEagles

In Mrs May's defence, I think she knows (and I agree) the last thing the Tory party needs is a 'reverse Maastricht' in the Commons.

tpfkar

MarqueeMark said:

Curse of the new thread. FPT:

williamglenn said:

"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.

Isn't the fundamental issue that the outcome of the referendum was a "NO," a vote against. The Government is having to decide what that's actually a vote for, with no mandate, only 52% support in the first place, and complicated negotiations ahead. No surprise they are getting bogged down.

I've always believed that there is no proposition, no deal available, which would ever get 50% support for a "YES." Hence why a second referendum isn't the dumbest idea around, on the necessary condition that the leavers would be forced to campaign for a "YES" to whatever the proposed deal / situation was - I think they'd really struggle.

TheWhiteRabbit

FPT

Josias

I googled tent infrared, there are lots of pictures of people quite clearly in tents! So yes the conditions or equipment might be different, but it seems unlikely.

williamglenn

Even on May's timetable you can expect some big moves on NATO and US-Russian relations before we get around to thinking about invoking article 50. We will have a materially different set of circumstances to those prevailing on June 23rd.

DavidL

taffys said:

''I don't agree but that is a very good letter. ''

Mr Gross is quite at liberty to vote liberal democrat next time around. They will be advocating 'going back in'

He clearly thinks he is worth more than one vote, however.

I can admire an argument well made even if I don't agree with it.

JosiasJessop

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FPT

Josias

I googled tent infrared, there are lots of pictures of people quite clearly in tents! So yes the conditions or equipment might be different, but it seems unlikely.

Thanks; I'd love to see some. I tried "thermal image of a tent" without much success!

matt

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

In what sense is that extraordinary?

nielh

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

I don't agree but that is a very good letter.

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

I don't agree but that is a very good letter.

I think the point is the affluent, liberal middle class has been turned into a minority by low wages and globalisation.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

.

.

Sigh. I know.

Clearly they did pupilage at the esteemed firm that is Sue, Grabit, and Runne.

Perhaps the reason for all of this is because she had no fecking idea of what exactly Brexit means Brexit means in a practical sense.

More likely at Delay, Worry and Expense.

There is a lack of grip at the moment.

There are lots of issues in Brexit but its time that some of them were knocked on the head. We have announced we are staying in Europol so that is a start. Clearly we are going to need to stay in some sort of relationship with the European Common Aviation Area. We need to make it clear that those who are here can remain. We need to make it clear that students are still welcome but even in Scotland they might have to pay fees. We need to be clear that our target is a tariff free trade agreement. And so on and so on.

Most of this may just be our position and need counterparty agreement but we need to start putting the framework out there piece by piece.

For me the most interesting aspect today about that memo is that the government aren't disputing the contents, but shooting the memo, which one of the Times journos put to me was 'I think some officials say that's one of the problems of the Theresa May regime' but this bit from the memo

The memo, dated November 7 and titled Brexit Update, says that “major players” in industry are expected to “point a gun at the government’s head” after ministers gave assurances that the carmaker Nissan would not suffer when Britain left the EU.

She cannot keep the details of the Nissan deal hidden for much longer, I suspect the Nissan deal means we're staying in the single market and customs union, which is likely to give the hardcore leavers an aneurysm, but would be palatable to a lot of leavers.

TheWhiteRabbit

JosiasJessop said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FPT

Josias

I googled tent infrared, there are lots of pictures of people quite clearly in tents! So yes the conditions or equipment might be different, but it seems unlikely.

Thanks; I'd love to see some. I tried "thermal image of a tent" without much success!

http://www.infraredimagingservices.com/sites/default/files/images/Tent_2.jpg

Quite a lot of places discuss the camps:

https://alexhern.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/9-out-of-10-tents-are-empty-bullshit/

You can see that there are some clearly occupied, the question is how many that don't look occupied are in fact occupied.

nunu

Illegal prison strike: The unions seem to think May is in a very weak position.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

tpfkar said:

.

.

Sigh. I know.

Clearly they did pupilage at the esteemed firm that is Sue, Grabit, and Runne.

Perhaps the reason for all of this is because she had no fecking idea of what exactly Brexit means Brexit means in a practical sense.

More likely at Delay, Worry and Expense.

There is a lack of grip at the moment.

There are lots of issues in Brexit but its time that some of them were knocked on the head. We have announced we are staying in Europol so that is a start. Clearly we are going to need to stay in some sort of relationship with the European Common Aviation Area. We need to make it clear that those who are here can remain. We need to make it clear that students are still welcome but even in Scotland they might have to pay fees. We need to be clear that our target is a tariff free trade agreement. And so on and so on.

Most of this may just be our position and need counterparty agreement but we need to start putting the framework out there piece by piece.

For me the most interesting aspect today about that memo is that the government aren't disputing the contents, but shooting the memo, which one of the Times journos put to me was 'I think some officials say that's one of the problems of the Theresa May regime' but this bit from the memo

The memo, dated November 7 and titled Brexit Update, says that “major players” in industry are expected to “point a gun at the government’s head” after ministers gave assurances that the carmaker Nissan would not suffer when Britain left the EU.

She cannot keep the details of the Nissan deal hidden for much longer, I suspect the Nissan deal means we're staying in the single market and customs union, which is likely to give the hardcore leavers an aneurysm, but would be palatable to a lot of leavers.

We will not be in the single market. But we may be looking for tariff free access to it.

TheScreamingEagles

nunu said:

Illegal prison strike: The unions seem to think May is in a very weak position.

Richard Burgon was tearing strips off the government today.

RICHARD BURGON, The farting commie, FFS.

TheScreamingEagles

We are due a constitutional crisis, we've not had one since 1936.

Jonathan

TheScreamingEagles said:

nunu said:

Illegal prison strike: The unions seem to think May is in a very weak position.

Richard Burgon was tearing strips off the government today.

RICHARD BURGON, The farting commie, FFS.

Everyone farts, even Jacob Rees Mogg.

TheScreamingEagles

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nunu said:

Illegal prison strike: The unions seem to think May is in a very weak position.

Richard Burgon was tearing strips off the government today.

RICHARD BURGON, The farting commie, FFS.

Everyone farts, even Jacob Rees Mogg.

Not in the chamber of the Commons though

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

nunu said:

Illegal prison strike: The unions seem to think May is in a very weak position.

Richard Burgon was tearing strips off the government today.

RICHARD BURGON, The farting commie, FFS.

why's his opinion relevant ?

as voting this year has shown you can be as expert or celebby as you like but you only get one vote and since my fork lift truck driver gets one too who cares what he thinks ?

taffys

Judging by the FTs latest account of the EU's negotiating stance, it and the British government won;t be on the same planet.

It really is quite extraordinary.

JosiasJessop

TheWhiteRabbit said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FPT

Josias

I googled tent infrared, there are lots of pictures of people quite clearly in tents! So yes the conditions or equipment might be different, but it seems unlikely.

Thanks; I'd love to see some. I tried "thermal image of a tent" without much success!

http://www.infraredimagingservices.com/sites/default/files/images/Tent_2.jpg

Quite a lot of places discuss the camps:

https://alexhern.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/9-out-of-10-tents-are-empty-bullshit/

You can see that there are some clearly occupied, the question is how many that don't look occupied are in fact occupied.

My working assumption is that those that are much brighter have some active heat source in: cooker, light / candle (*) etc warming the fabric, especially in local patches. Certainly that first image seems to have a roughly rectangular, small hotpspot on it. I've no idea what's happening in the tent behind, though!

As I said on the previous thread, you need to think of the energy someone would be wasting if they were to warm the exterior of the tent material that much! Their sleeping bags must be rather poorly insulated, to say the least.

Or it might be that I'm utterly wrong. But I don't think so. If I'd only bought that Cat mobile phone with an IR camera, then I'd put up my tent and get Mrs J to sleep in it. Purely for science, of course.

(*) Even something as simple as a nightlight.

Verulamius

If the Government has to enforce the 1972 Act, what has authorised it the spending funds for enabling Brexit?

For example the Labour government specifically passed legislation for the Treasury to spend funds on preparatory work on joining the Euro.

Has parliament passed an enabling bill for government to spend money on Brexit?

Mortimer

matt said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

In what sense is that extraordinary?

Extraordinary.....lack of self awareness?

Pulpstar

I've gone "all green" on the Zac market by taking

Zac @ 1.30 (Now 1.39)/Back LD @ 4.26 to lay Richmond & Zac sub 2500 @ Ladbrokes 5-1.

Lucian_Fletcher

I think that FT letter is rather good. you can disagree with it while accepting it's a few levels above the usual Remain whine.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

Probably a pure coincidence because these lectures (if not necessarily their subject matter) will have been fixed well in advance but in the last week my legal news link tells me:

President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, delivered the 2016 Mitchell Lecture in Edinburgh, entitled “Some thoughts on judicial reasoning across jurisdictions”.

Delivering the Sultan Azlan Shah Lecture 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale reflected on the evolving constitutional role of the UK Supreme Court, and the proper limits of that role when compared to other supreme courts around the world.

Finally, Lord Hodge delivered a lecture to the Lincoln’s Inn Denning Society last week on preserving judicial independence.

Are their Lordships trying to send a message? Or are we just getting near the end of the CPD year?

Well if the Lord Chancellor isn't going to defend the judiciary properly then their Lordships will do it themselves.

DavidL

Lucian_Fletcher said:

I think that FT letter is rather good. you can disagree with it while accepting it's a few levels above the usual Remain whine.

Exactly.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Probably a pure coincidence because these lectures (if not necessarily their subject matter) will have been fixed well in advance but in the last week my legal news link tells me:

President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, delivered the 2016 Mitchell Lecture in Edinburgh, entitled “Some thoughts on judicial reasoning across jurisdictions”.

Delivering the Sultan Azlan Shah Lecture 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale reflected on the evolving constitutional role of the UK Supreme Court, and the proper limits of that role when compared to other supreme courts around the world.

Finally, Lord Hodge delivered a lecture to the Lincoln’s Inn Denning Society last week on preserving judicial independence.

Are their Lordships trying to send a message? Or are we just getting near the end of the CPD year?

Well if the Lord Chancellor isn't going to defend the judiciary properly then their Lordships will do it themselves.

And they are it seems. Interesting times.

Pulpstar

Brexit means Brexit, and I think it'll be a mess.

I enjoy being proved right however so if May could get on with it I'd appreciate it.

DavidL

The Government has won the injunction against the Prison Officers. Pyrrhic victory?

David_Evershed

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

I don't agree but that is a very good letter.

Well phrased but weak logic.

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

The Government has won the injunction against the Prison Officers. Pyrrhic victory?

What exactly has the Gov't injuncted ?

The utter state of some prisons ?

That's public knowledge...

David_Evershed

taffys said:

Judging by the FTs latest account of the EU's negotiating stance, it and the British government won;t be on the same planet.

It really is quite extraordinary.

The same FT that was campaigning against Leave and against Trump.

David_Evershed

DavidL said:

The Government has won the injunction against the Prison Officers. Pyrrhic victory?

They fought the law - and the law won.

taffys

''And they are it seems. Interesting times. ''

One of the great pieces of remainer logic is

1. British justice is the best in the world..

2. ...er but we should accept its equivalence with the justice system of Romania. You'll get a fair trial there. No, you really will.

DavidL

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

The Government has won the injunction against the Prison Officers. Pyrrhic victory?

What exactly has the Gov't injuncted ?

The utter state of some prisons ?

That's public knowledge...

They have been ordered back to work apparently. Presumably the POA will have a problem if they do not comply. If someone gets stabbed now....

We used to laugh at Ronald Reagan arresting the air traffic controllers. I really don't think this is going to help working relations develop in an optimal way.

TheScreamingEagles

taffys said:

''And they are it seems. Interesting times. ''

One of the great pieces of remainer logic is

1. British justice is the best in the world..

2. ...er but we should accept its equivalence with the justice system of Romania. You'll get a fair trial there. No, you really will.

Are you really back on this topic after your embarrassing performance a few days ago?

'The judiciary is biased and political because Phil Shiner'

JosiasJessop

Actually, if my experience of campsites is anything to go by, instead of IR cameras they should just have sensitive microphones to pick up the sounds of the occupants snoring, farting or having sex!

And sometimes the three more or less simultaneously ...

I was once at a campsite near Glastonbury (not for the festival) where the French couple in the tent next to mine had noisy sex for what seemed like most of the night. Gits.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

The Government has won the injunction against the Prison Officers. Pyrrhic victory?

What exactly has the Gov't injuncted ?

The utter state of some prisons ?

That's public knowledge...

The POA is injuncted from inducing strike action

Richard_Nabavi

Our EU friends are hardly likely to open the negotiations by stating 'The UK has us by the short'n'curlies', nor is the UK government likely to say 'We haven't got anything to offer the EU, so we'll have to take whatever crumbs they are gracious enough to give to us', so on balance I wouldn't place too much credence on newspaper reports about what some official told some journalist.

Alistair

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FPT

Josias

I googled tent infrared, there are lots of pictures of people quite clearly in tents! So yes the conditions or equipment might be different, but it seems unlikely.

It's all about the camera settings. To 'see' people in tents anyone out of a tent would have to be a shining supernova. The Daily Mail photos were not balanced like that.

David_Evershed

Lucian_Fletcher said:

I think that FT letter is rather good. you can disagree with it while accepting it's a few levels above the usual Remain whine.

Given the lack of logic in the letter let's hope he doesn't work as a systems analyst or engineer.

Casino_Royale

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

"We" are 40-something, soft-left, very middle class, slightly-ashamed-to-be-English, ex-Blairite/New Labourites then.

Pretty much the core of the Remain vote.

matt

Lucian_Fletcher said:

I think that FT letter is rather good. you can disagree with it while accepting it's a few levels above the usual Remain whine.

I agree that it's well written. Extraordinary though? Superlative debasement in action.

Edit: although on a second read, the entitled whinging comes through significantly more strongly. Given the address, I can guess the party affiliation.

Casino_Royale

Tissue_Price said:

The three-line bill is sensible though I do wonder about "unamendable".

The problem with Article 50 remains the two-year window. The EU can simply run out the clock on negotiations. Much as they did on the renegotiation, though that was self-imposed by Cameron.

It's an article written by the EU to favour the EU [and as such could be seen as legally unfair, though good luck getting the ECJ to rule that way!]

My preference would be not to invoke A50 until after some negotiations have taken place. Clearly the EU aren't currently disposed to do that so a policy of obstructionism would seem to be in order.

I think the worst that would happen in that scenario would be an emergency free-trade in goods only deal. Not WTO only fallback.

The former is massively in the EU interest. But they wouldn't get any budgetary payments in, any sort of guarantees on migration or movement, or security/military cooperation so I expect a deal or an extension.

Cameron did his inside 9 months of shuttle diplomacy so, where there's a will there's a way.

nunu

Obama basically criticising Clinton and her campaigning "skills".

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/798302026341810176/photo/1

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/798537724735193088

But he also said this

@patrickwintour: Boris Johnson: Free movement as a fundamental freedom? 'Bollocks' politico.eu/article/boris-… via @POLITICOEurope

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/798535910363201536

Sean_F

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/798523007371276288

I don't agree but that is a very good letter.

The writer sounds a bit precious.

Lucian_Fletcher

matt said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

I think that FT letter is rather good. you can disagree with it while accepting it's a few levels above the usual Remain whine.

I agree that it's well written. Extraordinary though? Superlative debasement in action.

Edit: although on a second read, the entitled whinging comes through significantly more strongly. Given the address, I can guess the party affiliation.

Oh it's definitely one of the more smug New Labour types. But it's still enjoyable to read.

Alistair

nunu said:

Obama basically criticising Clinton and her campaigning "skills".

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/798302026341810176/photo/1

That seems to suggest and abandonment of the 50 state strategy by the Dems this time around.

Lucian_Fletcher

matt said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

I think that FT letter is rather good. you can disagree with it while accepting it's a few levels above the usual Remain whine.

I agree that it's well written. Extraordinary though? Superlative debasement in action.

Edit: although on a second read, the entitled whinging comes through significantly more strongly. Given the address, I can guess the party affiliation.

To be fair, I never said it was extraordinary. Rather good is some way short of that!

williamglenn

Putting those two statements from Boris together, is the negotiating position, "If you want to keep us in the customs union you need to give us a concession on free movement."

Scott_P

williamglenn said:

Putting those two statements from Boris together, is the negotiating position, "If you want to keep us in the customs union you need to give us a concession on free movement."

How long before No 10 "clarifies" his remarks?

Jonathan

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/798535910363201536

Some point soon May is going to have to decide whether Boris is worth the hassle. He clearly will have problems with the new White House and is not liked in Europe. Normally, that's a big disadvantage for a Foreign Secretary.

The only upside to him I can see is providing a distraction whilst the real work happens elsewhere, much like a magicians slight of hand.

Innocent_Abroad

David_Evershed said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

I think that FT letter is rather good. you can disagree with it while accepting it's a few levels above the usual Remain whine.

Given the lack of logic in the letter let's hope he doesn't work as a systems analyst or engineer.

Never forget: there are 16 million traitors that Boris, Nigel & other patriots have yet to suppress. In the national interest, of course. They could start by being character witnesses for Thomas Mair - but will they have the guts?

matt

Lucian_Fletcher said:

matt said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

I think that FT letter is rather good. you can disagree with it while accepting it's a few levels above the usual Remain whine.

I agree that it's well written. Extraordinary though? Superlative debasement in action.

Edit: although on a second read, the entitled whinging comes through significantly more strongly. Given the address, I can guess the party affiliation.

To be fair, I never said it was extraordinary. Rather good is some way short of that!

You didn't, that was in the original post. BTW, I'd go with LD as the party.

williamglenn

Scott_P said:

williamglenn said:

Putting those two statements from Boris together, is the negotiating position, "If you want to keep us in the customs union you need to give us a concession on free movement."

How long before No 10 "clarifies" his remarks?

It's like having Geoff Boycott as foreign secretary.

David_Evershed

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/798535910363201536

Some point soon May is going to have to decide whether Boris is worth the hassle. He clearly will have problems with the new White House and is not liked in Europe. Normally, that's a big disadvantage for a Foreign Secretary.

The only upside to him I can see is providing a distraction whilst the real work happens elsewhere, much like a magicians slight of hand.

We have seen TV pictures in the last day of Boris at the EU foreign ministers meeting with a group of admiring foreign colleagues joking and laughing. He is very personable.

Don't forget he had to apologise for being rude to Kerry - that will go down well with Trump.

Lucian_Fletcher

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

williamglenn said:

Putting those two statements from Boris together, is the negotiating position, "If you want to keep us in the customs union you need to give us a concession on free movement."

How long before No 10 "clarifies" his remarks?

It's like having Geoff Boycott as foreign secretary.

How very dare you. Sir Geoffrey would have dead-batted much more effectively.

Stark_Dawning

David_Evershed said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/798535910363201536

Some point soon May is going to have to decide whether Boris is worth the hassle. He clearly will have problems with the new White House and is not liked in Europe. Normally, that's a big disadvantage for a Foreign Secretary.

The only upside to him I can see is providing a distraction whilst the real work happens elsewhere, much like a magicians slight of hand.

We have seen TV pictures in the last day of Boris at the EU foreign ministers meeting with a group of admiring foreign colleagues joking and laughing. He is very personable.

Were they laughing with him or at him?

MarqueeMark

tpfkar said:

MarqueeMark said:

Curse of the new thread. FPT:

williamglenn said:

"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.

Isn't the fundamental issue that the outcome of the referendum was a "NO," a vote against. The Government is having to decide what that's actually a vote for, with no mandate, only 52% support in the first place, and complicated negotiations ahead. No surprise they are getting bogged down.

I've always believed that there is no proposition, no deal available, which would ever get 50% support for a "YES." Hence why a second referendum isn't the dumbest idea around, on the necessary condition that the leavers would be forced to campaign for a "YES" to whatever the proposed deal / situation was - I think they'd really struggle.

In any second referendum, those who voted to stay should have no vote. They already chose which door to go through. They don't get second dibs on what choice of Brexit, because they've already said they don't want any Brexit.

As we can't work out who those who voted Remain are from those who voted to Leave, a second vote isn't practical. So there. Just have to go with what your Government negotiates. If you don't like that settlement, kick them out next time you get the chance.

Pulpstar

Seriously

"In first test, Trump makes big mistake"

When are CNN going to bloody learn ?

MarqueeMark

logical_song said:

MarqueeMark said:

Curse of the new thread. FPT:

williamglenn said:

"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.

But what Brexit means was not decided by the referendum.

No. But what was decided was Brexit. We're going out.

MarqueeMark

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

williamglenn said:

Putting those two statements from Boris together, is the negotiating position, "If you want to keep us in the customs union you need to give us a concession on free movement."

How long before No 10 "clarifies" his remarks?

It's like having Geoff Boycott as foreign secretary.

Geoff Boycott's granny could have negotiated Brexit.

Casino_Royale

MarqueeMark said:

logical_song said:

MarqueeMark said:

Curse of the new thread. FPT:

williamglenn said:

"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.

But what Brexit means was not decided by the referendum.

No. But what was decided was Brexit. We're going out.

For me, I would say it means we quit its political structures, and escape the jurisdiction of the EU treaties, ECJ and the EU Commission.

Casino_Royale

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/798535910363201536

Some point soon May is going to have to decide whether Boris is worth the hassle. He clearly will have problems with the new White House and is not liked in Europe. Normally, that's a big disadvantage for a Foreign Secretary.

The only upside to him I can see is providing a distraction whilst the real work happens elsewhere, much like a magicians slight of hand.

FWIW, I agree that free movement as a fundamental right is bollocks. It only makes sense if you view the EU as a political project to create a new single country - which, of course, many of the federalists do.

If (and it's a big if) Boris goes, I'd like to see him replaced by Gove.