politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five months after the vote and BREXIT is as decisive an issue

SystemSystem Posts: 12,265
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five months after the vote and BREXIT is as decisive an issue as ever

"undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper={}),window.datawrapper["paNvw"]={},window.datawrapper["paNvw"].embedDeltas={"100":880.8,"200":708.8,"300":653.8,"400":626.8,"500":599.8,"600":599.8,"700":599.8,"800":599.8,"900":599.8,"1000":572.8},window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-paNvw"),window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["paNvw"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])"paNvw"==b&&(window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px")});

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,384
    Frit, like Pence
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,291
    edited November 2016
    Second like Zac

    Surely there is a typo in this thread title, "divisive" is what was meant?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,384
    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    How does an audience apologise? Does the FBI track them down and ask for individual 'sorry for being rude' notes?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,259
    FPT:
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    FF43 said:

    Dromedary said:

    FF43 said:

    I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.

    How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?

    What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.


    A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.
    At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.

    Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
  • OUTOUT Posts: 569
    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
    They just shrugged it off.
    Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,944
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    FPT:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    FF43 said:

    Dromedary said:

    FF43 said:

    I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.

    How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?

    What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.


    A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.
    At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.

    Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
    Was that lifted from 'Russia Today'?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,448
    Not much Regrexit here...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,384
    MORE arse crawling.

    https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/799982229187428352
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Theuniondivvie said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    How does an audience apologise? Does the FBI track them down and ask for individual 'sorry for being rude' notes?
    I'd have hoped the actor who called Pence back at the end to lecture him might have apologised on their behalf. A theatre is a public place and people have free speech but Pence was attending as a private citizen I believe. In the end it's all about taste.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    OUT said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
    They just shrugged it off.
    Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
    Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Tory splits widening.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

    Good job Cameron lanced the boil.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,769
    Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.

    But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.

    Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,384
    felix said:

    OUT said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
    They just shrugged it off.
    Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
    Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.
    But Big Daddy Trump has.
    Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Some PBers may find this interesting

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    fpt:Nonsense from start to finish.

    The Patriot Act is no longer in place, and no one in Congress is going to vote for something similar ever again.

    So Speedy, there are no emergency powers the President could use to suspend rights then?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited November 2016
    I think we can all agree now that the EU was a concern for a great number of people afterall..!
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Mr. Hopkins, indeed. I'll believe we're leaving when we've left.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Theuniondivvie said:

    felix said:

    OUT said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
    They just shrugged it off.
    Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
    Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.
    But Big Daddy Trump has.
    Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.
    Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Jonathan said:

    Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.

    But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.

    Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.

    Don't disagree - but people's lives are being affected adversely by the continued in-fighting on both sides and while the extremists continue to play their silly games this can only get worse.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    felix said:

    OUT said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
    They just shrugged it off.
    Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
    Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.
    But Big Daddy Trump has.
    Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.
    Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.
    There is a time and a place to protest and it is not in a theatre.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Bromptonaut said:

    Tory splits widening.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

    Good job Cameron lanced the boil.

    Speaking medically, when you lance a boil the pus runs out!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,384
    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    felix said:

    OUT said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
    They just shrugged it off.
    Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
    Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.
    But Big Daddy Trump has.
    Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.
    Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.
    Dr Evadne Hinge is reborn and walks among us!
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    Jonathan said:

    Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.

    But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.

    Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.

    This is true, partly because of inane soundbites like "brexit is brexit", and the attitude that "we're doing it for good or ill".

    Although in some ways it's good to have a brexit sceptic as PM (Since there are different kinds of brexiters, a brexiter PM would be involved in a power struggle; and May will, one would imagine, seek to retain the benefits of EU membership) it's hardly satisfying for anyone to see a major policy being implemented by someone who doesn't believe it's in the best interests of the country, i.e. by someone whose heart is not in it.
  • OUTOUT Posts: 569
    MP_SE said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    felix said:

    OUT said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
    They just shrugged it off.
    Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
    Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.
    But Big Daddy Trump has.
    Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.
    Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.
    There is a time and a place to protest and it is not in a theatre.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Theuniondivvie said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    felix said:

    OUT said:

    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
    They just shrugged it off.
    Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
    Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.
    But Big Daddy Trump has.
    Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.
    Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.
    Dr Evadne Hinge is reborn and walks among us!
    I'll Bracket [sic] that comment as a compliment.
  • partypoliticalorphanpartypoliticalorphan Posts: 374
    It's divisive but is it decisive? For years OGH and the pollsters told us that the EU was way down the list of voter priorities. Has that changed?
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Bromptonaut said:

    Tory splits widening.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

    Good job Cameron lanced the boil.

    Speaking medically, when you lance a boil the pus runs out!
    But it's meant to start the healing process. Whereas...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,919
    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited November 2016
    13% of Remainers are no longer sure that leaving was wrong or are now certain that leaving was right.

    It's only 8% of Leavers who have changed their minds or who have expressed doubts about leaving.

    That would point to a bigger Leave win in a re-run any time soon.

    One in eight Remainers seem to have decided that project fear was project bullshit.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    And because so many here lurve him, here's the TMZ intv with Trump. Filmed back in September but not broadcast until now. Hillary refused to do one hence the delay.

    https://youtu.be/qi1df15VmCs
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,905
    rcs1000 said:

    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mr. Glenn, this has shades of iconoclasts and iconodules.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,765
    I've come to the conclusion that if Brexit goes to a Commons vote then it will be scuppered - by the 60 hardcore Tory Leavers.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

    It's bound to happen. There'll be a least one EU agreement that May wants to retain, but which the hardcores will denounce as a sneaky betrayal and EU membership in all but name. If it stops Brexit then so be it - it'll be the government's/Leavers' fault for being duplicitous.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,774
    williamglenn said:



    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

    Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    williamglenn said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
    "Article 50 is revocable"

    Proof please.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,905
    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
    "Article 50 is revocable"

    Proof please.
    Proof that it isn't?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mr. Glenn, proof there isn't a giant chocolate teapot orbiting the Earth? :p
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,905
    viewcode said:

    williamglenn said:



    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

    Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.
    Extending the negotiations requires unanimity. Revoking the notification is purely in the UK's gift.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    williamglenn said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
    "Article 50 is revocable"

    Proof please.
    Proof that it isn't?

    You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,905
    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
    "Article 50 is revocable"

    Proof please.
    Proof that it isn't?

    You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

    https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,774
    williamglenn said:

    viewcode said:

    williamglenn said:



    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

    Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.
    Extending the negotiations requires unanimity. Revoking the notification is purely in the UK's gift.
    "Requesting it be reversed/ignored" is in the UK's gift. "Revoked" is not in the UK's gift. "Revoked" has the assumption of inevitability. If you had gone for "not inevitable" I'd've agreed with you, although I would have insisted you added the rider "...provided the other countries agreed"
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    williamglenn said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
    "Article 50 is revocable"

    Proof please.
    Proof that it isn't?

    You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

    https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Which implies it is not revocable.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MarkHopkins said:

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Non-sequitor

    If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

    That doesn't mean you can't revoke
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,905
    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
    "Article 50 is revocable"

    Proof please.
    Proof that it isn't?

    You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

    https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Which implies it is not revocable.

    It implies merely that it is badly drafted, which it is.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,155
    Is there any discussion in the treaty itself that it can be revoked?
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,275
    edited November 2016
    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    williamglenn said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MarkHopkins said:


    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

    Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
    Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
    "Article 50 is revocable"

    Proof please.
    Proof that it isn't?

    You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

    https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Which implies it is not revocable.

    The truth is obscure as the treaty makes no mention of it. The matter can only be resolved definitively by the ECJ. The issue is a serious one as if A50 is not reversible and the negotiations break down we face a WTO cliff edge in 2019.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    partypoliticalorphan said:

    It's divisive but is it decisive? For years OGH and the pollsters told us that the EU was way down the list of voter priorities. Has that changed?

    It sure ain't DEVISIVE as above cos it ain't a word :)
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Stark_Dawning said:

    I've come to the conclusion that if Brexit goes to a Commons vote then it will be scuppered - by the 60 hardcore Tory Leavers.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

    It's bound to happen. There'll be a least one EU agreement that May wants to retain, but which the hardcores will denounce as a sneaky betrayal and EU membership in all but name. If it stops Brexit then so be it - it'll be the government's/Leavers' fault for being duplicitous.

    Some of the 'Ultras' really are that stupid but I don't think they'll do it in the end.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    MarkHopkins said:

    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.

    As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,155
    PClipp said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.

    As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....
    Isn't each party pushing their own interpretation of the vote?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_P said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Non-sequitor

    If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

    That doesn't mean you can't revoke
    It implies it. Otherwise you just revoke and resubmit to get an unilateral extension
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited November 2016
    Scott_P said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Non-sequitor

    If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

    That doesn't mean you can't revoke

    There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

    My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

    It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

    EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited November 2016
    MarkHopkins said:

    Scott_P said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Non-sequitor

    If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

    That doesn't mean you can't revoke

    There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

    My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

    It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

    EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

    I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...
  • ReallyEvilMuffinReallyEvilMuffin Posts: 65
    edited November 2016
    Charles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    Scott_P said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Non-sequitor

    If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

    That doesn't mean you can't revoke

    There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

    My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

    It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

    EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

    I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...
    You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    RobD said:

    PClipp said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
    I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
    Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
    And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

    A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.

    As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....
    Isn't each party pushing their own interpretation of the vote?
    Of course, Mr D. Which is why it was a stupid question.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject 2h2 hours ago

    Trump's reported victory margin in Arizona (3.57%) is now less than his margin in North Carolina (3.74%)
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    edited November 2016
    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    What are the odds that the govt will back out of taking Brexit to the Supreme Court?

    As others have said, including the gang of three Tory remainers this morning, going to the court seems like a political mistake. If instead the govt goes to parliament and asserts its primacy in deciding national matters, Brexit will proceed as a national project with a relatively short delay. Whereas the court will have to make a constitutional decision about which delegated/devolved matter takes precedence: in this case, the Brexit referendum or the Scottish parliament. Potentially this could hold Brexit up by 2 or 3 years.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    felix said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Frit, like Pence

    The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.
    Safe space, safe space
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,551
    Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ReallyEvilMuffin said:

    Charles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    Scott_P said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Non-sequitor

    If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

    That doesn't mean you can't revoke

    There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

    My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

    It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

    EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

    I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...
    You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.
    That's already covered in the extension clause.

    If the economic chaos is so severe then the UK is forced to return as a supplicant - they wouldn't want them to have a unilateral right to cancel the process and revert to the status quo.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,155
    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    How many ways can people try to find to invalidate the result? :smiley:

    The question was straightforward - leave or remain.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rottenborough said:

    Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

    Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,919
    ReallyEvilMuffin said:

    Charles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    Scott_P said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

    Non-sequitor

    If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

    That doesn't mean you can't revoke

    There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

    My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

    It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

    EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

    I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...
    You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.
    The EU doesn't get a vote; 27 countries do.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited November 2016
    Omfg, he actually demanded it be a safe place, I'd only seen the other tweet.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mr. Chestnut and Mr. Charles, indeed.

    Mr. Llama, you might be interested (given your liking for the old cartography) in this post:
    http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/writing-blog/the-map-of-denland
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    PlatoSaid said:

    Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played

    Thanks Plato, looks interesting.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?
    I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,905
    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?
    I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)
    EU membership is equally a domestic affair.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,155
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?
    I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)
    EU membership is equally a domestic affair.
    Does the Scottish Parliament ratify international treaties that have implications in Scotland?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?
    I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)
    EU membership is equally a domestic affair.
    No, it's a treaty between sovereign states
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    rottenborough said:

    Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

    how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,925
    HurstLlama said:

    rottenborough said:

    Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

    Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.
    To be fair Cameron hasn't needed to do his own spinning for many years.

    There's been no shortage of arselickers willing to do it for him.

    What I suspect Cameron has had a shortage of though was people willing to tell him inconvenient truths.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,919
    AndyJS said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played

    Thanks Plato, looks interesting.
    Scott Adams book "How to Fail at Nearly everything and still win big" is well worth reading
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,155
    nunu said:

    rottenborough said:

    Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

    how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?
    No sign of that happening.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    HurstLlama said:

    rottenborough said:

    Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

    Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.
    That's right. Didn't he tell the Council of Ministers that he was a winner !
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,905
    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?
    I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)
    EU membership is equally a domestic affair.
    No, it's a treaty between sovereign states
    Either it goes beyond that, in which case it isn't, or it doesn't, in which case the sovereignty argument for leaving is bogus.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,155
    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    An appeal to the ECJ just wont happen.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    Some reports from on the ground:

    1) HS2 is a divisive issue for the blue rinse brigade. But it is definitely going to happen, Sir Pat said so himself Thursday.
    2) Apparently Osborne "would be lynched" by BTL investors, he is enemy numero uno,
    3) There is a feeling Lib Dem strength could be being underestimated.
    4) Corbyn is seen as a massive asset for the Tories.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?
    I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)
    EU membership is equally a domestic affair.
    No, it's a treaty between sovereign states
    Either it goes beyond that, in which case it isn't, or it doesn't, in which case the sovereignty argument for leaving is bogus.
    No, it doesn't. And no, it isn't.

    The sovereignty argument is more to do with the trajectory of development (ie the EU is on an inevitable path towards a formal union/federation - in my view it either has to integrate further or to fall apart)

    There are people who believe that sovereignty shared is sovereignty diminished, but would be more properly described as "freedom of action" diminished as a free state always reserves the right to pull out.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,742
    nunu said:

    rottenborough said:

    Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

    how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?
    George Cunningham's amendment seemed clever at the time, but really fostered resentment subsequently.

    Once there is a majority vote to leave the EU, our position within the organisation becomes untenable.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,925
    Pulpstar said:

    Some reports from on the ground:

    1) HS2 is a divisive issue for the blue rinse brigade. But it is definitely going to happen, Sir Pat said so himself Thursday.
    2) Apparently Osborne "would be lynched" by BTL investors, he is enemy numero uno,
    3) There is a feeling Lib Dem strength could be being underestimated.
    4) Corbyn is seen as a massive asset for the Tories.

    Which ground ?

    And my opinion of Osborne was just raised a notch.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...

    (which is why I said it...)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,925
    ' The big development this week is that the Scottish and Welsh governments have been joined to the action sparking of the speculation that Nicola Sturgeon could have a veto. '

    They'll have as much of a veto as the leaders of any other county council.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    If there were a scenario under which Holyrood could block the UK leaving the EU then England and Wales could have a referendum to leave the UK and then be booted out of the EU.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,905
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...

    (which is why I said it...)
    Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,128
    edited November 2016
    This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.

    This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.

    Positives for Brexit
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,551
    another_richard said:

    HurstLlama said:

    rottenborough said:

    Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

    Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.
    To be fair Cameron hasn't needed to do his own spinning for many years.

    There's been no shortage of arselickers willing to do it for him.

    What I suspect Cameron has had a shortage of though was people willing to tell him inconvenient truths.
    Except perhaps Osborne, who told him it was a crazy idea to have an EU referendum and was ignored.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,291
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.

    This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.

    Positives for Brexit

    Less chocolate for the same money? I don't recall the Brexit nutjobs ever telling us this would happen?
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,963
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...

    (which is why I said it...)
    Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?
    The polling evidence indicates that Scots would not leave the UK to stay in the EU.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Alistair said:

    Omfg, he actually demanded it be a safe place, I'd only seen the other tweet.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947

    He's just sticking up for his special snowflake Mike Pence.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,925
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.

    This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.

    Positives for Brexit

    I think the reduced size of the packs would be taken into account when calculation the CPI.

    But from what I can see in the supermarkets the price of regular food hasn't changed (if anything tis slightly cheaper than a year ago) whilst it is branded chocolates etc where attempts are being made to increase the profit margins.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,128
    Apparently the euro has had it's worst run in years and is expected to reach parity with the dollar next week. Commentators are expecting it to continue it's decline into the year end as the US is expected to increase their interest rates.

    Is this a real threat for Europe as some are saying or do they have anything they can do to mitigate the fall
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    kjohnw said:

    can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

    Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament :grin:

    It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
    I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...

    (which is why I said it...)
    Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?
    I disagree.
This discussion has been closed.