@JGForsyth: Whatever the verdict in the Article 50 case, the fact that the courts can overrule the executive is a feature--not a bug--of our system
I agree with that. But the Courts need to use their power judiciously, for want of a better word. This is not a case where they should have interfered. If they overreach themselves they will find their wings clipped.
Odd that you characterise it as them interferring - the government accepted that the question of law was one for the court to answer, in light of a challenge. That presumably means that, whatever the outcome, they have not interferred unreasonably.
No. It means like every court case there was a binary choice of the outcome. And I happen to believe that they should have chosen the conclusion that this was a matter for the government of the day provided it had a majority in Parliament, not a matter for the Courts. Such a decision is still a Judicial decision and one that they were properly asked to make.
But if the notification can be revoked then two consequences of profound importance follow.
The first is that the Executive—relevantly composed of three buccaneering Brexiters—must negotiate mindful of what parliament is likely to find acceptable. Unless it does, parliament will reject the deal. A revocable Article 50 is more likely to deliver what parliament decides is a good Brexit.
The second is that it opens the door to the possibility that we “Remain.”
The notification being revoked, in theory, sounds like a major headache - the irrevocability is one thing the claimants and the government had both agreed on in the a50 case, iirc!
I find it hard to think any deal would be so bad a majority of MPs, despite their previous Remain position, would revoke a50 without additional democratic mandate in the form of a GE where they stated they might do so, or a second referendum (the latter not happening before the former), or they'd surely take a massive hit.
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
This is UK retail sales year-over-year (3m vs 3m):
That scares the living daylights out of me. Our growth is still dominated by consumer consumption.
It makes us incredibly vulnerable. I would much exports, and business investment were driving growth rather than our already over-levered consumers.
I went to West Ham on Saturday and the Westfield shopping centre was heaving. Admittedly it is a few weeks before Christmas, but business is booming there.
Looks like the young voted overwhelmingly against while the oldies voted in favour. Maybe because the M5S is somewhat vaguely left-wing / not-right wing it does well at getting the young on board with its ideas?
That statistic suggests also that the populist anti-establishment wave apparently sweeping across continents doesn't have to be left to the likes of far right movements such as Trump/UKIP/the FN etc to exploit. Italy is blessed that in the country that spawned fascism, the M5S offers a different outlet to frustration at the political establishment.
I think it confirms too that the electorate is quite capable of using a vote to deliver a verdict on a very different question to that intended by those calling the referendum. As soon as Renzi threatened to resign, it became a vote on whether he should do so, not on constitutional change. Likewise Thursday's vote, in the oddity of an overwhelmingly Remain constituency, was turned into a second vote on Brexit rather than one on Heathrow.
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
This is UK retail sales year-over-year (3m vs 3m):
That scares the living daylights out of me. Our growth is still dominated by consumer consumption.
It makes us incredibly vulnerable. I would much exports, and business investment were driving growth rather than our already over-levered consumers.
I went to West Ham on Saturday and the Westfield shopping centre was heaving. Admittedly it is a few weeks before Christmas, but business is booming there.
But who was doing the shopping? In West London the Westfield is 50% Arab, Chinese and other tourists at least!
Mr. Meeks, I'm sure Tim Montgomerie is amongst the finest minds supporting putting a bill through Parliament.
Edited extra bit: a forecast: Government loses in the Supreme Court. Goes through Parliament. Faffing about in the Commons. Chance of serious embuggerance, but odds against. Lords completely seek to bugger up the bill with countless delays, amendments, may even vote against it. Constitutional crisis. General Election. Lib Dems make significant gains (maybe to 20-30 seats).
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
This is UK retail sales year-over-year (3m vs 3m):
That scares the living daylights out of me. Our growth is still dominated by consumer consumption.
It makes us incredibly vulnerable. I would much exports, and business investment were driving growth rather than our already over-levered consumers.
Absolutely. When we referred to "the deficit" we used to mean the balance of payments. About time that we did so again.
On which point, given that our balance of payments deficit can be attributable entirely to the deficit in trade in goods with the EU, shouldn't the Government be at least starting from a stance that the EU should be required to pay the UK to secure continued access to UK markets?
But if the notification can be revoked then two consequences of profound importance follow.
The first is that the Executive—relevantly composed of three buccaneering Brexiters—must negotiate mindful of what parliament is likely to find acceptable. Unless it does, parliament will reject the deal. A revocable Article 50 is more likely to deliver what parliament decides is a good Brexit.
The second is that it opens the door to the possibility that we “Remain.”
What Maughan refuses to accept is that Parliament has no choice but to accept the deal - because it's whatever deal we negotiate verses NO DEAL AT ALL.
Yes, that's WTO Brexit - Hard as you like.
He believes:
If, when the Brexiters return with their deal, the economy has tanked; if inflation is rising and living standards have slumped; if the deficit has ballooned; if the deal is a poor one, the only winners will be door manufacturers. Across the country they will be hard at work replacing those kicked down at constituency offices by voters demanding a fix. MPs will reject the deal—or more likely demand a second referendum—and we will “Remain.”
But if the notification can be revoked then two consequences of profound importance follow.
The first is that the Executive—relevantly composed of three buccaneering Brexiters—must negotiate mindful of what parliament is likely to find acceptable. Unless it does, parliament will reject the deal. A revocable Article 50 is more likely to deliver what parliament decides is a good Brexit.
The second is that it opens the door to the possibility that we “Remain.”
What Maughan refuses to accept is that Parliament has no choice but to accept the deal - because it's whatever deal we negotiate verses NO DEAL AT ALL.
Yes, that's WTO Brexit - Hard as you like.
He believes:
If, when the Brexiters return with their deal, the economy has tanked; if inflation is rising and living standards have slumped; if the deficit has ballooned; if the deal is a poor one, the only winners will be door manufacturers. Across the country they will be hard at work replacing those kicked down at constituency offices by voters demanding a fix. MPs will reject the deal—or more likely demand a second referendum—and we will “Remain.”
Alastair Meeks-A little more civility to those who disagree with you is all we ask-thank you.
Where were you when SeanT was calling those who voted to remain TRAITORS ?
SeanT calls everyone traitors. Or even TRAITORS.
A verbal lashing from SeanT is part of the rites of passage of the site.
In the course of the last year, I have been called a traitor, a quisling and my death has been wished for. And now I am asked for a little more civility because I do not trouble to conceal my contempt for those who sought victory by pandering to xenophobia and who now attack the rule of law. You may guess my general thoughts on that request.
Mr. Meeks, I'm sure Tim Montgomerie is amongst the finest minds supporting putting a bill through Parliament.
Edited extra bit: a forecast: Government loses in the Supreme Court. Goes through Parliament. Faffing about in the Commons. Chance of serious embuggerance, but odds against. Lords completely seek to bugger up the bill with countless delays, amendments, may even vote against it. Constitutional crisis. General Election. Lib Dems make significant gains (maybe to 20-30 seats).
According to Mark D'Arcy Labour in the Lords have said they will not seek to block Brexit, and the Lords as a whole are wary of seeming to block the people. Not sure how accurate he usually is, but he makes it sounds like it'll be a bit of work, should parliament need to be involved, but should not stop Brexit being triggered (which he, like the court, sees as irrevocable)
But if the notification can be revoked then two consequences of profound importance follow.
The first is that the Executive—relevantly composed of three buccaneering Brexiters—must negotiate mindful of what parliament is likely to find acceptable. Unless it does, parliament will reject the deal. A revocable Article 50 is more likely to deliver what parliament decides is a good Brexit.
The second is that it opens the door to the possibility that we “Remain.”
What Maughan refuses to accept is that Parliament has no choice but to accept the deal - because it's whatever deal we negotiate verses NO DEAL AT ALL.
Yes, that's WTO Brexit - Hard as you like.
He believes:
If, when the Brexiters return with their deal, the economy has tanked; if inflation is rising and living standards have slumped; if the deficit has ballooned; if the deal is a poor one, the only winners will be door manufacturers. Across the country they will be hard at work replacing those kicked down at constituency offices by voters demanding a fix. MPs will reject the deal—or more likely demand a second referendum—and we will “Remain.”
emphasis added
Well, it's nice to have hope I guess.
'It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.'
Alastair Meeks-A little more civility to those who disagree with you is all we ask-thank you.
Where were you when SeanT was calling those who voted to remain TRAITORS ?
SeanT calls everyone traitors. Or even TRAITORS.
A verbal lashing from SeanT is part of the rites of passage of the site.
In the course of the last year, I have been called a traitor, a quisling and my death has been wished for. And now I am asked for a little more civility because I do not trouble to conceal my contempt for those who sought victory by pandering to xenophobia and who now attack the rule of law. You may guess my general thoughts on that request.
I have never insulted you. You called me an arsehole.
I don't like gratuitous insults and certainly not threats of violence. So I sympathise.
Not least because I have been on the receiving end of such gratuitous insults from you.
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
At a quick reckoning, the people SeanT has called TRAITORS include:
Nicola Sturgeon, The Scots, the Welsh, Ed Miliband, Nick Palmer, the Labour Party, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, The LibDems, David Cameron, the Cameroonies & the Remainers.
I'd guess the list of TRAITORS probably includes 90 per cent of the population of these islands.
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
At a quick reckoning, the people SeanT has called TRAITORS include:
Nicola Sturgeon, The Scots, the Welsh, Ed Miliband, Nick Palmer, the Labour Party, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, The LibDems, David Cameron, the Cameroonies & the Remainers.
I'd guess the list of TRAITORS probably includes 90 per cent of the population of these islands.
Sean also wanted to deport me to Madagascar a few months ago.
Although a few days later he graciously admitted he had he been over the top
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
That, at least, is pretty irrelevant - its pretty clear this is a complex legal question, one which experienced constitutional thinkers disagree on. I've no doubt most people think this should be the PMs decision to make, particularly in our presidential PM kind of way, but its not a matter of who should, but who can, as things stand.
It's a bit different to the people making their views known on a policy question, that is to leave hte EU, despite many telling us it would be a mistake. One is a policy question, the other highly technical. What should we do vs what is the legal position as thing stand. You don't need to know anything about anything to state which general direction you'd like to go, but you do need to know details of the route if you are to be taken there.
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
At a quick reckoning, the people SeanT has called TRAITORS include:
Nicola Sturgeon, The Scots, the Welsh, Ed Miliband, Nick Palmer, the Labour Party, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, The LibDems, David Cameron, the Cameroonies & the Remainers.
I'd guess the list of TRAITORS probably includes 90 per cent of the population of these islands.
I can't immediately see why the Welsh are on that list, but you could make a good argument for all of the others {grin}
Our previous REMAIN PM said he was going to trigger article 50 the day after the referendum in the event of a leave vote. He instigated and designed the referendum and he didn't see the need for any parliamentary scrutiny requirement in order to trigger Article 50
At a quick reckoning, the people SeanT has called TRAITORS include:
Nicola Sturgeon, The Scots, the Welsh, Ed Miliband, Nick Palmer, the Labour Party, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, The LibDems, David Cameron, the Cameroonies & the Remainers.
I'd guess the list of TRAITORS probably includes 90 per cent of the population of these islands.
Sean also wanted to deport me to Madagascar a few months ago.
Although a few days later he graciously admitted he had he been over the top
To be honest if he was going to pay you should have accepted - and seen if he would throw in a few more of us as well. Fabulous place that is as close to paradise on earth as anywhere I have ever been - outside of England of course. :-)
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
“The only real alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit, even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility.”
I'm amazed he would say such a thing. Were I a conspiracy theorist I'd say he mentioned it as a possibility as a way to firm up British support for a hard Brexit, but I doubt many people took notice.
Our previous REMAIN PM said he was going to trigger article 50 the day after the referendum in the event of a leave vote. He instigated and designed the referendum and he didn't see the need for any parliamentary scrutiny requirement in order to trigger Article 50
It's a good thing he didn't then, since the courts say he didn't have the power to do so without the act saying so, and resolving that after the fact would have been even messier than this shower. Government say they have the power for things all the time, they can be wrong. As, indeed, can judges, hence appeals (and in our case, a parliament that can have as close to unfettered power as it likes should the judges overstep).
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
In public opinion, no - IF the Supreme Court says Brexit must go through Parliament, and IF Parliament somehow puts the kibosh on it, Mrs May will be in a strong position if it comes to a GE - 'I tried to implement YOUR BREXIT decision but (fill in list of villains) stopped me - that's why I need YOUR mandate to implement YOUR decision'.......
At a quick reckoning, the people SeanT has called TRAITORS include:
Nicola Sturgeon, The Scots, the Welsh, Ed Miliband, Nick Palmer, the Labour Party, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, The LibDems, David Cameron, the Cameroonies & the Remainers.
I'd guess the list of TRAITORS probably includes 90 per cent of the population of these islands.
Sean also wanted to deport me to Madagascar a few months ago.
Although a few days later he graciously admitted he had he been over the top
To be honest if he was going to pay you should have accepted - and seen if he would throw in a few more of us as well. Fabulous place that is as close to paradise on earth as anywhere I have ever been - outside of England of course. :-)
And very prospective from an oil & gas perspective...
At a quick reckoning, the people SeanT has called TRAITORS include:
Nicola Sturgeon, The Scots, the Welsh, Ed Miliband, Nick Palmer, the Labour Party, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, The LibDems, David Cameron, the Cameroonies & the Remainers.
I'd guess the list of TRAITORS probably includes 90 per cent of the population of these islands.
Sean also wanted to deport me to Madagascar a few months ago.
Although a few days later he graciously admitted he had he been over the top
To be honest if he was going to pay you should have accepted - and seen if he would throw in a few more of us as well. Fabulous place that is as close to paradise on earth as anywhere I have ever been - outside of England of course. :-)
Clearly you've never been to the Yorkshire Moors, that is paradise, the Garden of Eden was located there.
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
What's the bit of (what looks like) Arabic after his handle?
It's the Arabic equivalent of the letter N. It was scrawled on some Christian's ( Nasara or ' Nazarenes ' in Arabic ) houses in Iraq as a threat by Islamists. It became an internet thing to have one on your avatar to express solidarity.
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
In public opinion, no - IF the Supreme Court says Brexit must go through Parliament, and IF Parliament somehow puts the kibosh on it, Mrs May will be in a strong position if it comes to a GE - 'I tried to implement YOUR BREXIT decision but (fill in list of villains) stopped me - that's why I need YOUR mandate to implement YOUR decision'.......
Oh absolutely - the Court's actions provide many a political opportunity, its why I doubt the government minded losing the initial challenge, and since it has options even if the appeal fails, the furore kicked up could be harnessed. If parliament plays silly buggers with this opportunity, she will probably be able to get a mandate for some major constitutional change if she wants.
I hasten to add I doin't think that was the plan - it's too risky. I imagine the government thought and thinks its case was correct, and may be proven right, but the whole thing is as much opportunity as headache, depending on how obstructive Labour or the Lords get, which does seem to have occured to them both.
There is a confusion over to what 'it' refers to in your post.
The fact remains that the EU referendum act - unlike the one for AV - was completely silent as to what actions or consequences would follow from any particular vote in the referendum. Therefore as a legal instrument the lawyers have rightly put it aside in terms of any formal decision -making significance. Whilst i understand that from your political perspective you may not like this, it does stem from a decision made originally by politicians, not lawyers.
If those are the rules we're going to play by, then fine. But on that basis, the HC should not have given any weight to what MPs might have been intending when they passed the 1972 ECA; they should simply have gone on what was in it - and nowhere did it revoke the prerogative on matters relating to membership of the EC.
There wasn't anything "in it" to "go on", that was the point.
So they had to sit back and work out where the decision would sit, regardless of the referendum. Legally the question would the same as if - let's say - the Tories (or UKIP, take your choice) had put leaving the EU in their manifesto - no referendum - , been elected, and the government (not parliament) had then announced it was submitting A50 and leaving the EU. I think that in such circumstances people would be finding it easier to understand - and support - the lawyers; indeed I suspect there might be outrage if any government had proceeded like that.
There is a concern this time because the referendum has changed the emotion of the scenario without changing the logic or law of it.
But as there was nothing to "go on", it's just an assertion to claim that the prerogative no longer exists with regard to Brexit. It's an assertion that the High Court agreed with but it's still an assertion based on opinion as much as evidence, never mind law (because as you say, that law was never written).
You cannot simply wish away the referendum. I agree that had a government simply invoked A50, even after an election victory, there'd be an outcry and rightly so. But this is at the heart of my case: there is now a constitutional convention that major changes in constitutional practice (and I don't count the introduction of PCCs as such, for example), will be put to the people because ultimately it is the people who are sovereign (and a referendum is much less likely to be able to impose the view of a minority upon the majority). That referendum was held. As such, it should be sufficient, when combined with the 2008 Act not reserving the triggering of A50 to parliament and the 2015 Act authorising the referendum, to call the usage of the prerogative in respect of Brexit out of abeyance (if we accept it ever went into it), and hence, to confirm the government as having the power to act without the need for further legislation.
If you don't think comments by Leavers along the lines of describing the judiciary as para-legal-military wing of Remainers and talking about metaphorically having their heads kicked in aren't a disgrace, then there's no point continuing this discussion
Straw man argument. Not only have I not supported those comments but have actively argued against them. I support the judges making the decision and have done from the very start. I even hope they rule in favour of Parliament.
But that is not the point at all. What idiots might shout is irrelevant in this argument.
You have said that the people who distrust judges in the recent poll "don't support the rule of law."
That is a smear and brands you a dishonest hypocrite.
1. Acknowledged that it did not have the power to implement the decision itself, despite governments historically having had the power to implement treaties ratified by parliament, as Lisbon was.
2. Acknowledged that parliament had the right to override the people, not only in exceptional circumstances but as a matter of course.
Neither point was worth conceding without a fight.
I disagree on both points.
1. The principle is that Parliament decides on anything that isn't reserved to the executive under the Royal Prerogative. Constitutional lawyers who know their stuff are split on whether the Prerogative should apply in this case. That answers its own question. By all means s end it to the Supreme Court as a test case to clarify the law. Operationally, apply the principle and, if in doubt, get authorisation from Parliament.
2. Parliament is sovereign. It represents the people and decides how to do so. If the people don't like what Parliament decided, they vote them out. That is the number 1 core principle of a representative democracy. "Parliament overriding the people" is not just meaningless in terms of our constitution. It would actually subvert it if we attempted to apply that construct.
I accept parliament would expect to have big say. Not so much in the WHAT, which is a done deal, but in the HOW. People didn't decide the How in the referendum, si there is nothing to overwrite there.
I don't disagree in terms of the 'How'. In fact, I oppose those who want a second referendum because firstly, it wouldn't provide a meaningful choice (there'd be no 'stay in' and no 'leave but with different conditions' options) and secondly, it should be for parliament to do detail.
Referendums should be for providing the elected representatives with guidance on big decisions i.e. should Policy X be adopted or not? Where the result is for change, then that fact should be enough to authorise the use of such powers that the government has, or has had but which have fallen out of use but never been explicitly repealed, in order to execute the decision.
In this case, the referendum authorises the activation of Article 50 but no further. The decision was to Leave; Article 50 provides for that. How we leave is yet to be determined and that should rightly be a matter for Westminster alone.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Yes, in amongst all if the rubbish, this is what has changed. Whether it was economic or long term arguments, Davis seems to have swung towards a soft-Brexit stance.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Who said the government should act outside the law? But the law is not what one side of a contested case claims it to be (or at least, not until the matter's been ruled upon and has had their claim upheld).
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Who said the government should act outside the law?
Anyone who thinks they don't need to go through parliament for a start.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Who said the government should act outside the law?
Anyone who thinks they don't need to go through parliament for a start.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Yes, in amongst all if the rubbish, this is what has changed. Whether it was economic or long term arguments, Davis seems to have swung towards a soft-Brexit stance.
Whilst it wouldn't be my first choice, I could live with the Brexit deal that Davis and Hammond seem to be proposing.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Who said the government should act outside the law? But the law is not what one side of a contested case claims it to be (or at least, not until the matter's been ruled upon and has had their claim upheld).
No indeed. But if the highest court disagrees about taking the referendum into account when considering this point of law, do you think that will end the complaint that they failed to do so? A great many I have no doubt, given the high court were labelled enemies of the people for their decision, will continue to do so, not on the basis the law was wrong, but that it was undemocratic. I'll be happy to accept it is within the government's power, for whatever reason, should that be the judgement, you may be happy to accept that it is not, should the high court view be upheld even if you disagree with the reasoning, but plenty have already said and will continue to say 'the referendum was for leaving, therefore they should not have tried to prevent leaving' (that that is not what they are deciding is neither here not there).
Hartley-Brewer's descent into cretinous, reactionary shock-jockery has been breakneck. Katie Hopkins' hooter must be well out of joint....
JHB "It's not the job of people already living here to integrate...." What is wrong with that? When in Rome do as the Romans do should be the principle. I have lived overseas for 10+ years in societies with 2% migrants and with 60% migrants. In all cases the migrants were required to adopt local customs and dress etc etc. It was up to the migrants to integrate and fit in and if they broke the law, such as drunk driving, they were kicked out.
Hartley-Brewer's descent into cretinous, reactionary shock-jockery has been breakneck. Katie Hopkins' hooter must be well out of joint....
JHB "It's not the job of people already living here to integrate...." What is wrong with that? When in Rome do as the Romans do should be the principle. I have lived overseas for 10+ years in societies with 2% migrants and with 60% migrants. In all cases the migrants were required to adopt local customs and dress etc etc. It was up to the migrants to integrate and fit in and if they broke the law, such as drunk driving, they were kicked out.
Her tweet is no doubt taken out of context, but it seemed to suggest that black or asian people should become more white to integrate. A sort of reverse blacking up.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Who said the government should act outside the law?
Anyone who thinks they don't need to go through parliament for a start.
And which law is that that they'd be breaking?
The 1972 European Communities Act and the 1998 Scotland Act for a start.
Hartley-Brewer's descent into cretinous, reactionary shock-jockery has been breakneck. Katie Hopkins' hooter must be well out of joint....
JHB "It's not the job of people already living here to integrate...." What is wrong with that? When in Rome do as the Romans do should be the principle. I have lived overseas for 10+ years in societies with 2% migrants and with 60% migrants. In all cases the migrants were required to adopt local customs and dress etc etc. It was up to the migrants to integrate and fit in and if they broke the law, such as drunk driving, they were kicked out.
What has a white skin got to do with the mores, customs and dress of a country? If you have a brown skin, how the fuck do you integrate into 'a largely white country'?
Hartley-Brewer's descent into cretinous, reactionary shock-jockery has been breakneck. Katie Hopkins' hooter must be well out of joint....
JHB "It's not the job of people already living here to integrate...." What is wrong with that? When in Rome do as the Romans do should be the principle. I have lived overseas for 10+ years in societies with 2% migrants and with 60% migrants. In all cases the migrants were required to adopt local customs and dress etc etc. It was up to the migrants to integrate and fit in and if they broke the law, such as drunk driving, they were kicked out.
What has a white skin got to do with the mores, customs and dress of a country? If you have a brown skin, how the fuck do you integrate into 'a largely white country'?
Hartley-Brewer's descent into cretinous, reactionary shock-jockery has been breakneck. Katie Hopkins' hooter must be well out of joint....
JHB "It's not the job of people already living here to integrate...." What is wrong with that? When in Rome do as the Romans do should be the principle. I have lived overseas for 10+ years in societies with 2% migrants and with 60% migrants. In all cases the migrants were required to adopt local customs and dress etc etc. It was up to the migrants to integrate and fit in and if they broke the law, such as drunk driving, they were kicked out.
She clearly implies " already living here " = " White " and " new arrivals " = ' not white '. A fairly unpleasant and racist thing for a non white Briton to read.
Hartley-Brewer's descent into cretinous, reactionary shock-jockery has been breakneck. Katie Hopkins' hooter must be well out of joint....
JHB "It's not the job of people already living here to integrate...." What is wrong with that? When in Rome do as the Romans do should be the principle. I have lived overseas for 10+ years in societies with 2% migrants and with 60% migrants. In all cases the migrants were required to adopt local customs and dress etc etc. It was up to the migrants to integrate and fit in and if they broke the law, such as drunk driving, they were kicked out.
Asking people to culturally integrate is one thing, and I think to a certain extent is not unreasonable (certainly it would be unreasonable for people to have to abandon everything of their previous culture), but its the bit about being a white country which is the sticking point I would imagine. You cannot really integrate into a different race, except in the biblical sense if you see what I mean, which would if anything lead to less whiteness.
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
New research? That's two months old, and there has been other polling on it.
Link? And its a bit over 6 weeks...
I'm on my phone give me a bit, and I'll try and dig it out.
Thank you kindly - I'd be surprised if it had changed much in 6 weeks....voters don't pay anything like the level of attention us nerds do - and why should they? They've voted for Brexit and that sensible Mrs May has said she'll get on with it......
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Who said the government should act outside the law?
Anyone who thinks they don't need to go through parliament for a start.
And which law is that that they'd be breaking?
The 1972 European Communities Act and the 1998 Scotland Act for a start.
Chapter and verse, please.
There is nothing in either Act that repeals or nullifies the prerogative.
(I assume that in the case of the ECA, you're following the High Court reasoning?).
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
New research? That's two months old, and there has been other polling on it.
Link? And its a bit over 6 weeks...
I'm on my phone give me a bit, and I'll try and dig it out.
Thank you kindly - I'd be surprised if it had changed much in 6 weeks....voters don't pay anything like the level of attention us nerds do - and why should they? They've voted for Brexit and that sensible Mrs May has said she'll get on with it......
There was a supplementary question in a later poll which said something along the lines that a majority (or plurality) of the voters said they didn't agree with the original court decision but a majority thought it was right that the rule of the law be followed.
People won't vote for the one who defends the law against the public interest. People will vote for the one who changes the law in favour of the public interest.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Who said the government should act outside the law?
Anyone who thinks they don't need to go through parliament for a start.
And which law is that that they'd be breaking?
The 1972 European Communities Act and the 1998 Scotland Act for a start.
Chapter and verse, please.
There is nothing in either Act that repeals or nullifies the prerogative.
(I assume that in the case of the ECA, you're following the High Court reasoning?).
Any why not follow the High Court reasoning? The existence of an Act which affects domestic rights is evidence enough that the prerogative does not apply.
The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
"..."For six years, we have stood by while names like Ygrjvslhv and Tzlynhr and Glrm have been horribly butchered by millions around the world," Clinton said. "Today, the United States must finally stand up and say 'Enough.' It is time the people of Bosnia finally had some vowels in their incomprehensible words. The US is proud to lead the crusade in this noble endeavour."
The deployment, dubbed Operation Vowel Storm by the State Department, is set for early next week, with the Adriatic port cities of Sjlbvdnzv and Grzny slated to be the first recipients. Two C-130 transport planes, each carrying over 500 24-count boxes of "E's," will fly from Andrews Air Force Base across the Atlantic and airdrop the letters over the cities.
Citizens of Grzny and Sjlbvdnzv eagerly await the arrival of the vowels. "My God, I do not think we can last another day," Trszg Grzdnjkln, 44, said. "I have six children and none of them has a name that is understandable to me or to anyone else. Mr. Clinton, please send my poor, wretched family just one 'E.' Please..."
One of the weirdest welsh language stories I can recall, and it is probably a myth, was a council/business had a sign that needed going up in welsh and sent the information to translation service, got a reply and put it up on the sign, only it actually said , in welsh, 'i'm not in the office' and so on.
Its weird, because the story is usually making fun of the sign people for just slapping any old text up, but it always felt to me strange as a company which provided english to welsh translation would surely not have its out of office emails in welsh, since the whole point of its service was people did not speak it and needed to come to them to translate.
Hartley-Brewer's descent into cretinous, reactionary shock-jockery has been breakneck. Katie Hopkins' hooter must be well out of joint....
JHB "It's not the job of people already living here to integrate...." What is wrong with that? When in Rome do as the Romans do should be the principle. I have lived overseas for 10+ years in societies with 2% migrants and with 60% migrants. In all cases the migrants were required to adopt local customs and dress etc etc. It was up to the migrants to integrate and fit in and if they broke the law, such as drunk driving, they were kicked out.
This is pretty much nonsense. When I lived in Hungary there was no pressure to speak Hungarian, eat főzelék or go on vízitúrák. (Well okay slight pressure to go on vízitúrák but I never did go on one.) Of course I did need to speak the language and eat the local food from time to time, but "When in Rome" is a silly motto and anyone who utters it should probably be ignored. How many Brits living in Asia or Africa adopt local dress or (in Muslim areas) go to daily prayers? By contrast, many Brits living abroad not only ignore local customs but do also break local laws in various ways, unwittingly or blatantly.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Yes, in amongst all if the rubbish, this is what has changed. Whether it was economic or long term arguments, Davis seems to have swung towards a soft-Brexit stance.
Whilst it wouldn't be my first choice, I could live with the Brexit deal that Davis and Hammond seem to be proposing.
This is the settlement being prepared IMO:
1. Free trade in goods and services, mutual standards recognition for goods, equivalence granted for services. ECJ based arbitration. Eventually a bilateral ISDS. 2. Reciprocal social access charges for migrants for up to 5 years. 3. It will be called a bespoke deal, but essentially just EFTA/EEA with free movement of workers rather than people.
It is Brexit for the 60%, which includes you, @rcs1000, @Richard_Tyndall and many other reasonable people regardless of supporting remain or leave in June. The only unhappy people will be those who wish us to become a member of the superstate and those who are want to end all immigration and close the nation for business and investment.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Yes, in amongst all if the rubbish, this is what has changed. Whether it was economic or long term arguments, Davis seems to have swung towards a soft-Brexit stance.
Whilst it wouldn't be my first choice, I could live with the Brexit deal that Davis and Hammond seem to be proposing.
This is the settlement being prepared IMO:
1. Free trade in goods and services, mutual standards recognition for goods, equivalence granted for services. ECJ based arbitration. Eventually a bilateral ISDS. 2. Reciprocal social access charges for migrants for up to 5 years. 3. It will be called a bespoke deal, but essentially just EFTA/EEA with free movement of workers rather than people.
It is Brexit for the 60%, which includes you, @rcs1000, @Richard_Tyndall and many other reasonable people regardless of supporting remain or leave in June. The only unhappy people will be those who wish us to become a member of the superstate and those who are want to end all immigration and close the nation for business and investment.
Sounds ok, but not supported by 40% is a large number, I can foresee immediate campaigns to divest ourselves yet further once the deal is done, should that be the case. The lines for the 2020 election being set?
I am a man of letters, of wit and intelligence, of insight and mirth. The tedium of proceedings grates upon the nerves of a fellow with my lively mind.
Besides, if you want the horn you should read of the frisky elves in The Adventures of Sir Edric.
Reminds me, I should probably actually release the next two novels at some point.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Yes, in amongst all if the rubbish, this is what has changed. Whether it was economic or long term arguments, Davis seems to have swung towards a soft-Brexit stance.
Whilst it wouldn't be my first choice, I could live with the Brexit deal that Davis and Hammond seem to be proposing.
This is the settlement being prepared IMO:
1. Free trade in goods and services, mutual standards recognition for goods, equivalence granted for services. ECJ based arbitration. Eventually a bilateral ISDS. 2. Reciprocal social access charges for migrants for up to 5 years. 3. It will be called a bespoke deal, but essentially just EFTA/EEA with free movement of workers rather than people.
It is Brexit for the 60%, which includes you, @rcs1000, @Richard_Tyndall and many other reasonable people regardless of supporting remain or leave in June. The only unhappy people will be those who wish us to become a member of the superstate and those who are want to end all immigration and close the nation for business and investment.
I think such a deal would be worse for the UK than a straight EFTA deal though. In EFTA we would be subject to the decisions of the EFTA court which are strictly limited in their scope to issues of the Single Market. Under the deal you are suggesting we would still be subject to rulings of the ECJ which would allow for continued creep into areas other than the Single Market.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Yes, in amongst all if the rubbish, this is what has changed. Whether it was economic or long term arguments, Davis seems to have swung towards a soft-Brexit stance.
Whilst it wouldn't be my first choice, I could live with the Brexit deal that Davis and Hammond seem to be proposing.
This is the settlement being prepared IMO:
1. Free trade in goods and services, mutual standards recognition for goods, equivalence granted for services. ECJ based arbitration. Eventually a bilateral ISDS. 2. Reciprocal social access charges for migrants for up to 5 years. 3. It will be called a bespoke deal, but essentially just EFTA/EEA with free movement of workers rather than people.
It is Brexit for the 60%, which includes you, @rcs1000, @Richard_Tyndall and many other reasonable people regardless of supporting remain or leave in June. The only unhappy people will be those who wish us to become a member of the superstate and those who are want to end all immigration and close the nation for business and investment.
Sounds ok, but not supported by 40% is a large number, I can foresee immediate campaigns to divest ourselves yet further once the deal is done, should that be the case. The lines for the 2020 election being set?
40% is higher than the vote share the winning party has received in the last three general elections.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Yes, in amongst all if the rubbish, this is what has changed. Whether it was economic or long term arguments, Davis seems to have swung towards a soft-Brexit stance.
Whilst it wouldn't be my first choice, I could live with the Brexit deal that Davis and Hammond seem to be proposing.
This is the settlement being prepared IMO:
1. Free trade in goods and services, mutual standards recognition for goods, equivalence granted for services. ECJ based arbitration. Eventually a bilateral ISDS. 2. Reciprocal social access charges for migrants for up to 5 years. 3. It will be called a bespoke deal, but essentially just EFTA/EEA with free movement of workers rather than people.
It is Brexit for the 60%, which includes you, @rcs1000, @Richard_Tyndall and many other reasonable people regardless of supporting remain or leave in June. The only unhappy people will be those who wish us to become a member of the superstate and those who are want to end all immigration and close the nation for business and investment.
I think such a deal would be worse for the UK than a straight EFTA deal though. In EFTA we would be subject to the decisions of the EFTA court which are strictly limited in their scope to issues of the Single Market. Under the deal you are suggesting we would still be subject to rulings of the ECJ which would allow for continued creep into areas other than the Single Market.
There are other EFTA advantages too, but I have work to do
@JGForsyth: Whatever the verdict in the Article 50 case, the fact that the courts can overrule the executive is a feature--not a bug--of our system
I agree with that. But the Courts need to use their power judiciously, for want of a better word. This is not a case where they should have interfered. If they overreach themselves they will find their wings clipped.
Odd that you characterise it as them interferring - the government accepted that the question of law was one for the court to answer, in light of a challenge. That presumably means that, whatever the outcome, they have not interferred unreasonably.
No. It means like every court case there was a binary choice of the outcome. And I happen to believe that they should have chosen the conclusion that this was a matter for the government of the day provided it had a majority in Parliament, not a matter for the Courts. Such a decision is still a Judicial decision and one that they were properly asked to make.
The choice to do so would have strayed from the realm of judicial to political. It would set a constitutional precedent overruling the Bill of Rights - that the Royal Prerogative could be used to withdraw rights from the citizens of the UK without the explicit assent of Parliament. Which was a charge laid against James II and the justification of the Glorious Revolution.
The Government could have arranged for Parliament to have "pre-approved" the decision. It did so in the most recent prior national referendum but did not do so in this case and emphasised this to Parliamentarians in their briefing prior to voting on the Referendum Act.
As long as exercising Article 50 inevitably leads to withdrawal of rights from the people of the UK, the law is clear - Parliament must explicitly approve. If Article 50 were revocable, or the Referendum Act had included the "pre-approval" by making the referendum binding, or the rights were not automatically lost, the Government should win. If none of those are true, it should lose.
The Government can lay a Bill rescinding the Bill of Rights, or it can lay a Bill authorising Article 50. Either need the explicit authorisation of Parliament - Parliament is sovereign. The Government is subject to Parliament, which is precisely why a Government needs the confidence of a majority of Parliament.
To rule otherwise is a big political and constitutional intervention.
Re Brexit, this case is flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things.
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Yes, in amongst all if the rubbish, this is what has changed. Whether it was economic or long term arguments, Davis seems to have swung towards a soft-Brexit stance.
Whilst it wouldn't be my first choice, I could live with the Brexit deal that Davis and Hammond seem to be proposing.
This is the settlement being prepared IMO:
1. Free trade in goods and services, mutual standards recognition for goods, equivalence granted for services. ECJ based arbitration. Eventually a bilateral ISDS. 2. Reciprocal social access charges for migrants for up to 5 years. 3. It will be called a bespoke deal, but essentially just EFTA/EEA with free movement of workers rather than people.
It is Brexit for the 60%, which includes you, @rcs1000, @Richard_Tyndall and many other reasonable people regardless of supporting remain or leave in June. The only unhappy people will be those who wish us to become a member of the superstate and those who are want to end all immigration and close the nation for business and investment.
Sounds ok, but not supported by 40% is a large number, I can foresee immediate campaigns to divest ourselves yet further once the deal is done, should that be the case. The lines for the 2020 election being set?
40% is higher than the vote share the winning party has received in the last three general elections.
Yes, but the 40% are usually not united in what they dislike about the 60%.
Comments
I find it hard to think any deal would be so bad a majority of MPs, despite their previous Remain position, would revoke a50 without additional democratic mandate in the form of a GE where they stated they might do so, or a second referendum (the latter not happening before the former), or they'd surely take a massive hit.
I think it confirms too that the electorate is quite capable of using a vote to deliver a verdict on a very different question to that intended by those calling the referendum. As soon as Renzi threatened to resign, it became a vote on whether he should do so, not on constitutional change. Likewise Thursday's vote, in the oddity of an overwhelmingly Remain constituency, was turned into a second vote on Brexit rather than one on Heathrow.
Edited extra bit: a forecast:
Government loses in the Supreme Court.
Goes through Parliament.
Faffing about in the Commons. Chance of serious embuggerance, but odds against.
Lords completely seek to bugger up the bill with countless delays, amendments, may even vote against it.
Constitutional crisis.
General Election.
Lib Dems make significant gains (maybe to 20-30 seats).
On which point, given that our balance of payments deficit can be attributable entirely to the deficit in trade in goods with the EU, shouldn't the Government be at least starting from a stance that the EU should be required to pay the UK to secure continued access to UK markets?
A verbal lashing from SeanT is part of the rites of passage of the site.
If, when the Brexiters return with their deal, the economy has tanked; if inflation is rising and living standards have slumped; if the deficit has ballooned; if the deal is a poor one, the only winners will be door manufacturers. Across the country they will be hard at work replacing those kicked down at constituency offices by voters demanding a fix. MPs will reject the deal—or more likely demand a second referendum—and we will “Remain.”
emphasis added
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38187867
John Cleese character in Clockwise......
I don't like gratuitous insults and certainly not threats of violence. So I sympathise.
Not least because I have been on the receiving end of such gratuitous insults from you.
(Although I think this is a second account for you? So you may get an exemption)
New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/10/14/decision-article-50-should-rest-pm-not-parliament-/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/05/gunman-detained-at-comet-pizza-restaurant-was-self-investigating-fake-news-reports
For me the most interesting aspect of Brexit in the last week is David Davis turning into a soft Brexiter and allying himself with Philip Hammond to stop the excesses of Boris and Liam Fox, and Mrs May backing Davis and Hammond.
Nicola Sturgeon, The Scots, the Welsh, Ed Miliband, Nick Palmer, the Labour Party, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, The LibDems, David Cameron, the Cameroonies & the Remainers.
I'd guess the list of TRAITORS probably includes 90 per cent of the population of these islands.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/its-hard-brexit-or-no-brexit-at-all-says-eu-council-president
“The only real alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit, even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility.”
Although a few days later he graciously admitted he had he been over the top
It's a bit different to the people making their views known on a policy question, that is to leave hte EU, despite many telling us it would be a mistake. One is a policy question, the other highly technical. What should we do vs what is the legal position as thing stand. You don't need to know anything about anything to state which general direction you'd like to go, but you do need to know details of the route if you are to be taken there.
Of the people, by the people, for the people, sort of thing.
Evening Standard
Streets submerged by severe flooding in Islington https://t.co/Nh8bGx4lRX
ISIS marked Christian homes & businesses with it, especially in Mosul.
Some people on The Twitter use it in solidarity.
In public opinion, no - IF the Supreme Court says Brexit must go through Parliament, and IF Parliament somehow puts the kibosh on it, Mrs May will be in a strong position if it comes to a GE - 'I tried to implement YOUR BREXIT decision but (fill in list of villains) stopped me - that's why I need YOUR mandate to implement YOUR decision'.......
I hasten to add I doin't think that was the plan - it's too risky. I imagine the government thought and thinks its case was correct, and may be proven right, but the whole thing is as much opportunity as headache, depending on how obstructive Labour or the Lords get, which does seem to have occured to them both.
There wasn't anything "in it" to "go on", that was the point.
So they had to sit back and work out where the decision would sit, regardless of the referendum. Legally the question would the same as if - let's say - the Tories (or UKIP, take your choice) had put leaving the EU in their manifesto - no referendum - , been elected, and the government (not parliament) had then announced it was submitting A50 and leaving the EU. I think that in such circumstances people would be finding it easier to understand - and support - the lawyers; indeed I suspect there might be outrage if any government had proceeded like that.
There is a concern this time because the referendum has changed the emotion of the scenario without changing the logic or law of it.
But as there was nothing to "go on", it's just an assertion to claim that the prerogative no longer exists with regard to Brexit. It's an assertion that the High Court agreed with but it's still an assertion based on opinion as much as evidence, never mind law (because as you say, that law was never written).
You cannot simply wish away the referendum. I agree that had a government simply invoked A50, even after an election victory, there'd be an outcry and rightly so. But this is at the heart of my case: there is now a constitutional convention that major changes in constitutional practice (and I don't count the introduction of PCCs as such, for example), will be put to the people because ultimately it is the people who are sovereign (and a referendum is much less likely to be able to impose the view of a minority upon the majority). That referendum was held. As such, it should be sufficient, when combined with the 2008 Act not reserving the triggering of A50 to parliament and the 2015 Act authorising the referendum, to call the usage of the prerogative in respect of Brexit out of abeyance (if we accept it ever went into it), and hence, to confirm the government as having the power to act without the need for further legislation.
But that is not the point at all. What idiots might shout is irrelevant in this argument.
You have said that the people who distrust judges in the recent poll "don't support the rule of law."
That is a smear and brands you a dishonest hypocrite.
Referendums should be for providing the elected representatives with guidance on big decisions i.e. should Policy X be adopted or not? Where the result is for change, then that fact should be enough to authorise the use of such powers that the government has, or has had but which have fallen out of use but never been explicitly repealed, in order to execute the decision.
In this case, the referendum authorises the activation of Article 50 but no further. The decision was to Leave; Article 50 provides for that. How we leave is yet to be determined and that should rightly be a matter for Westminster alone.
https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/805728880002732032
Yorkshire Bible, Garden of Gethsemane:
"Abba, take this cup of suffering from me."
"Quit whining, you soft southern bastard! Get up on t'cross, and be glad it's not a cold day."
What is wrong with that? When in Rome do as the Romans do should be the principle. I have lived overseas for 10+ years in societies with 2% migrants and with 60% migrants. In all cases the migrants were required to adopt local customs and dress etc etc. It was up to the migrants to integrate and fit in and if they broke the law, such as drunk driving, they were kicked out.
Now, it does become the job of the people living there to change so that they can integrate with the new arrivals.
There is nothing in either Act that repeals or nullifies the prerogative.
(I assume that in the case of the ECA, you're following the High Court reasoning?).
People won't vote for the one who defends the law against the public interest.
People will vote for the one who changes the law in favour of the public interest.
Judges don't make the law, Parliament does.
The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
You can't beat a job title of 'Treasury devil'
"..."For six years, we have stood by while names like Ygrjvslhv and Tzlynhr and Glrm have been horribly butchered by millions around the world," Clinton said. "Today, the United States must finally stand up and say 'Enough.' It is time the people of Bosnia finally had some vowels in their incomprehensible words. The US is proud to lead the crusade in this noble endeavour."
The deployment, dubbed Operation Vowel Storm by the State Department, is set for early next week, with the Adriatic port cities of Sjlbvdnzv and Grzny slated to be the first recipients. Two C-130 transport planes, each carrying over 500 24-count boxes of "E's," will fly from Andrews Air Force Base across the Atlantic and airdrop the letters over the cities.
Citizens of Grzny and Sjlbvdnzv eagerly await the arrival of the vowels. "My God, I do not think we can last another day," Trszg Grzdnjkln, 44, said. "I have six children and none of them has a name that is understandable to me or to anyone else. Mr. Clinton, please send my poor, wretched family just one 'E.' Please..."
The whole Onion piece is just superb.
Its weird, because the story is usually making fun of the sign people for just slapping any old text up, but it always felt to me strange as a company which provided english to welsh translation would surely not have its out of office emails in welsh, since the whole point of its service was people did not speak it and needed to come to them to translate.
The coverage (and the case) is giving me the horn.
1. Free trade in goods and services, mutual standards recognition for goods, equivalence granted for services. ECJ based arbitration. Eventually a bilateral ISDS.
2. Reciprocal social access charges for migrants for up to 5 years.
3. It will be called a bespoke deal, but essentially just EFTA/EEA with free movement of workers rather than people.
It is Brexit for the 60%, which includes you, @rcs1000, @Richard_Tyndall and many other reasonable people regardless of supporting remain or leave in June. The only unhappy people will be those who wish us to become a member of the superstate and those who are want to end all immigration and close the nation for business and investment.
"What Englishman can behold without Awe, The Canvas and the Rigging of the Law!"
I am a man of letters, of wit and intelligence, of insight and mirth. The tedium of proceedings grates upon the nerves of a fellow with my lively mind.
Besides, if you want the horn you should read of the frisky elves in The Adventures of Sir Edric.
Reminds me, I should probably actually release the next two novels at some point.
http://www.france24.com/en/20161205-second-russian-jet-crashes-failed-carrier-landing-near-syria?ref=tw_i
The Government could have arranged for Parliament to have "pre-approved" the decision. It did so in the most recent prior national referendum but did not do so in this case and emphasised this to Parliamentarians in their briefing prior to voting on the Referendum Act.
As long as exercising Article 50 inevitably leads to withdrawal of rights from the people of the UK, the law is clear - Parliament must explicitly approve.
If Article 50 were revocable, or the Referendum Act had included the "pre-approval" by making the referendum binding, or the rights were not automatically lost, the Government should win. If none of those are true, it should lose.
The Government can lay a Bill rescinding the Bill of Rights, or it can lay a Bill authorising Article 50. Either need the explicit authorisation of Parliament - Parliament is sovereign. The Government is subject to Parliament, which is precisely why a Government needs the confidence of a majority of Parliament.
To rule otherwise is a big political and constitutional intervention.