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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
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.
Which is why the stated aim would be to move to ISDS arbitration, that would need unanimous ratification among every EU national Parliament. Not achievable within the timescale of A50. The reason I don't think EFTA/EEA is on the table is because point two would require an amendment of the EEA treaty, something which needs unanimous agreement. We must be realistic, the government can't come away with nothing on immigration and handily the EU's chief negotiator has given us a way out, but that won't be available within the EEA.
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
1. The people have not given any such authorisation. The Referendum Act did not define a winning margin and it can only be for parliament to interpret the results. The mere fact of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not change the constitutional requirements of the UK to make a decision on withdrawal and does not grant any new prerogative power.
2. Correct, but withdrawal from the EU would change the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and as such amend the Scotland Act.
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.
Agreed.
There are a fair few expats on this forum. I wonder what proportion live by TCPoliticalbetting s creed?
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
Yes, the capacity to withdraw is based explicitly on following our constitutional requirements: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
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.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
How could the public possibly know the answer, seeing as we need a Supreme Court judgement to make the legal situation clear?
What a dangerous world we are entering. This will end in disaster if we carry on the witch hunting and insane levels of false rage about every little step in the process of Brexit.
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.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
It'll be like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact all over again
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
Yes, the capacity to withdraw is based explicitly on following our constitutional requirements: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
Yes, let's burn down a thousand years of legal history and just have mob rule.
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.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
It'll be like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact all over again
You think there will be a secret clause on dividing Polish immigrants?
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
Yes, the capacity to withdraw is based explicitly on following our constitutional requirements: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
Yes. And?
And our constitutional requirements mean we need an Act of Parliament.
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.
How many Brits living in Asia or Africa adopt local dress or (in Muslim areas) go to daily prayers? y.
Try being a woman in the middle east not wearing a head scarf.
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
Yes, the capacity to withdraw is based explicitly on following our constitutional requirements: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
Yes. And?
And we are just discussing our constitutional requirements. The existence of that Article does not determine that we can overrule existing law and constitution. In short, the first sentence of your point 1 does not lead to the second sentence. The first is a fact; the second is an opinion which is divergent with existing constitutional law.
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
1. The people have not given any such authorisation. The Referendum Act did not define a winning margin and it can only be for parliament to interpret the results. The mere fact of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not change the constitutional requirements of the UK to make a decision on withdrawal and does not grant any new prerogative power.
2. Correct, but withdrawal from the EU would change the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and as such amend the Scotland Act.
1. It's not a new power; it's an old one which has lain dormant pending appropriate authorisation. I would argue that more than 50% in a referendum legislated for by parliament, in which it was clear that a Leave vote meant leaving the EU, should be sufficient to raise it from that dormancy - but obviously we disagree.
2. But again, that outcome must have been contemplated and accepted as part of the referendum bill passage.
Afternoon, all. I've been away in the BVI for a spot of yachting and diving (including the fantastic wreck of RMS Rhone), so I'm just catching up now on developments.
One point which strikes me is that the Italian referendum result might be quite helpful to the UK Brexit negotiations; our EU friends are clearly nervous, and it looks as though Greece is also bubbling up into trouble again. In such a scenario, dampening down further dislocation from a messy UK exit is going to be a higher priority than it would otherwise. The outline of a deal as posted by @MaxPB a few minutes ago would make sense, although of course there's no guarantee that it will be politically possible.
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.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
Where has 40% come from? Does it have some basis in polling or is it plucked from the air? Certainly that 3 option poll the other week did not have no Brexit under any circumstances at 40%.
I could live just fine with a good number of Brexit options resembling the above.
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
1. The people have not given any such authorisation. The Referendum Act did not define a winning margin and it can only be for parliament to interpret the results. The mere fact of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not change the constitutional requirements of the UK to make a decision on withdrawal and does not grant any new prerogative power.
2. Correct, but withdrawal from the EU would change the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and as such amend the Scotland Act.
1. It's not a new power; it's an old one which has lain dormant pending appropriate authorisation. I would argue that more than 50% in a referendum legislated for by parliament, in which it was clear that a Leave vote meant leaving the EU, should be sufficient to raise it from that dormancy - but obviously we disagree.
2. But again, that outcome must have been contemplated and accepted as part of the referendum bill passage.
In strict legal terms the referendum was merely a large opinion poll from which no automatic consequences can follow. Whether it binds parliament and the government politically to respect the view expressed is another matter.
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.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
Where has 40% come from? Does it have some basis in polling or is it plucked from the air? Certainly that 3 option poll the other week did not have no Brexit under any circumstances at 40%.
I could live just fine with a good number of Brexit options resembling the above.
The majority of the 40% will be made up of Kippers and hard Brexiteers who will protest that 'this is not what we voted for!'
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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Any sensible politician should be checking out who the hell these groups are and doing everything possible to give them a wide berth.
An event in parliament, no less.
And?
And therefore was presumably deemed acceptable by the parliamentary authorities.
Now that Trump has been elected, I see that "was in the same place as" smears are back in fashion.
It isn't the first time a disgusting (or dodgy) group have been hosted there. The parliamentary authorities seem to do a very poor job (if any) of checking out invites and bookings. We have seen it numerous times and not just Islamic groups with anti-Jewish sentiments.
As I said, any sensible politician should be checking out who these groups are before agreeing to attend events. If Britain First or BNP were being hosted, I would expect any sensible politician to do the same and give them a wide berth, unless they were attending with the specific intentions of debating against them e.g the QT against Nick Griffin.
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
This will end in disaster if we carry on the witch hunting and insane levels of false rage about every little step in the process of Brexit.
Worringl, the rage is not false. But I happen to agree that Brexit itself is being made more difficult than it needs to be by the outrage at every potential step of what was always going to be a complicated, drawn out process. Yes, there are those vigilant for opportunity to thwart it, but it can be self defeating for our Brexit if one overreacts, as much as undereacts.
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.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
Where has 40% come from? Does it have some basis in polling or is it plucked from the air? Certainly that 3 option poll the other week did not have no Brexit under any circumstances at 40%.
I could live just fine with a good number of Brexit options resembling the above.
I think its just plucked from the air. Assuming most people who voted remain are happy with a softer than a harder brexit (which is not universally the case, for a variety of reasons) and that a reasonable percentage of Brexiters are happy with a softish Brexit, and you can get to 60-65% fairly comfortably.
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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Please elucidate on why she started her tweet with 'this is a largely white country', oh wise one.
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.
Agreed.
There are a fair few expats on this forum. I wonder what proportion live by TCPoliticalbetting s creed?
I do here in Spain and believe very strongly that it is my responsibility as an immigrant to learn the language and respect the local and national customs. Not all do so but that just makes them t***s in my opinion.
In strict legal terms the referendum was merely a large opinion poll from which no automatic consequences can follow. Whether it binds parliament and the government politically to respect the view expressed is another matter.
In a practical sense, the Government pledged to the people that it would place into action their decision. Although the Government has since fallen due to resignation, the replacement Government has also pledged to place it into action. They should therefore submit - at the earliest possible time - a Bill to Parliament to authorise them to exercise Article 50 at a time of their choosing. Should it fail, they should seek a new election, either by putting that to Parliament, amending the FTPA, or engineering a confidence vote (which would be easily defensible as "Parliament does not have confidence in us to authorise the Article 50 Bill; we are simply making that explicit").
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.
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.
Agreed.
There are a fair few expats on this forum. I wonder what proportion live by TCPoliticalbetting s creed?
I do here in Spain and believe very strongly that it is my responsibility as an immigrant to learn the language and respect the local and national customs. Not all do so but that just makes them t***s in my opinion.
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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Doesn't she start by saying this s 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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Please elucidate on why she started her tweet with 'this is a largely white country', oh wise one.
Why shouldn't she - it's an accurate statement of fact - time to get off the outrage bus dear.
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.
tly.
Agreed.
There are a fair few expats on this forum. I wonder what proportion live by TCPoliticalbetting s creed?
I do here in Spain and believe very strongly that it is my responsibility as an immigrant to learn the language and respect the local and national customs. Not all do so but that just makes them t***s in my opinion.
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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Doesn't she start by saying this s a largely white country?
So what - a simple statement of fact. I know you want to scream waycist and shut down any argument but you're on the wrong site for that approach - try Labour list or LDV.
"..."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.
Using the ravages of war as a hook for joking about foreign names looking alien is funny?
British new car registrations rose by nearly 3 percent last month, an industry body said on Monday, putting the sector on course for record sales in 2016, although demand from retail customers fell for the eighth month in a row.
Strong demand from businesses for fleet vehicles compensated for the fall in individual buyers, lifting overall sales by 2.9 percent to 184,101 vehicles in November, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
Question...I presume leases from a leasing company i.e. in a personal capacity, not via your job, counts as the business sale as the leasing company buys the vehicle and you lease it from them for 2-3 years.
This option has increasing become popular, following the trend in the US. I presume that could be driving the increase in business vs personal.
"..."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.
Using the ravages of war as a hook for joking about foreign names looking alien is funny?
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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Please elucidate on why she started her tweet with 'this is a largely white country', oh wise one.
Why shouldn't she - it's an accurate statement of fact - time to get off the outrage bus dear.
Ah, just an arbitrary fact plucked from the air, with no relevance to the subject being discussed. How thick must J.H-B be if she manages to stumble completely off piste within 140 characters.
I'd suggest it's time to stop defending racist morons, if I was in the slightest bit attracted to pissing in the wind.
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
Yes, the capacity to withdraw is based explicitly on following our constitutional requirements: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
Yes. And?
And we are just discussing our constitutional requirements. The existence of that Article does not determine that we can overrule existing law and constitution. In short, the first sentence of your point 1 does not lead to the second sentence. The first is a fact; the second is an opinion which is divergent with existing constitutional law.
Constitutional law on this question is unknown (apart from the High Court ruling, which might be about to be superseded). The case is unique.
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.
Then while the council does not escape criticism, that definitely seems like a silly practice by their in house translation service more than anything else. At the least the out of office message should also have been bi lingual.
"..."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.
Using the ravages of war as a hook for joking about foreign names looking alien is funny?
Yes it is. You've never encountered darker comedy than that?
British services PMI hits 10-month high, points to solid fourth quarter growth
Businesses in Britain's dominant services sector grew at their fastest pace since January last month and the broader economy maintained momentum, even if firms have some worries about the year ahead, a survey showed on Monday.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
Where has 40% come from? Does it have some basis in polling or is it plucked from the air? Certainly that 3 option poll the other week did not have no Brexit under any circumstances at 40%.
I could live just fine with a good number of Brexit options resembling the above.
It's just a made up number, I figure 20% of the country are those who want us to join a federal superstate and 20% the country are those who want to pull up the drawbridge at any cost. The first group will ve unhappy with any kind of leave and they are the people who are fighting the court cases and giving war criminals like Blair any airtime. The second group are the Arron Banks/IDS part of the country who want us to leave at any cost and want zero migration and put up tariff barriers.
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 ththey were kicked out.
tly.
Agreed.
There are a fair few expats on this forum. I wonder what proportion live by TCPoliticalbetting s creed?
I do here in Spain and believe very strongly that it is my responsibility as an immigrant to learn the language and respect the local and national customs. Not all do so but that just makes them t***s in my opinion.
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 hss 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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing aboir colour - that was Otto English.
Doesn't she start by saying this s a largely white country?
So what - a simple statement of fact. I know you want to scream waycist and shut down any argument but you're on the wrong site for that approach - try Labour list or LDV.
Plenty of people have replied to your point, have any shouted you down? Some very negative indeed, but that's not the same thing. I'm not sensitive when it comes to these things, but emphasising the white and then saying people should integrate to fit that is at best careless language, since people cannot integrate their skin colour into something else. If the point was about integrating culturally it was poorly put. So even wth the most innocent of interpretations, her phrasing was bad since it distracted from the point with very little difficulty.
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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Please elucidate on why she started her tweet with 'this is a largely white country', oh wise one.
Why shouldn't she - it's an accurate statement of fact - time to get off the outrage bus dear.
Ah, just an arbitrary fact plucked from the air, with no relevance to the subject being discussed. How thick must J.H-B be if she manages to stumble completely off piste within 140 characters.
I'd suggest it's time to stop defending racist morons, if I was in the slightest bit attracted to pissing in the wind.
And yet you do it anyway - I'm shocked I tell you - shocked. Maybe because you think screaming ' waycist ' ends all argument. Supremely funny coming from the Scot Nat perspective. Heigh ho.
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.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
Where has 40% come from? Does it have some basis in polling or is it plucked from the air? Certainly that 3 option poll the other week did not have no Brexit under any circumstances at 40%.
I could live just fine with a good number of Brexit options resembling the above.
The majority of the 40% will be made up of Kippers and hard Brexiteers who will protest that 'this is not what we voted for!'
I'm a strong advocate that there needs to be something to show on immigration from a soft Brexit, whether or not the main immigration reductions are directly linked to Brexit or not. And a proper honesty resetting of the debate around what immigration we will actually need in the future to balance our demographics without an endlessly growing population should also help. Get that right and much of the Hard Brexit fanaticism will evaporate.
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.
Well quite. I live in the country where Brits are statistically most likely to end up arrested when abroad. "When in Rome" applies pretty much anywhere, especially in more conservative regions of the world.
The difference is that most other countries, unlike Britain, make sure that you know you're there as a guest - and that if you overstay your welcome you will quickly find yourself deported. If you want to get back in, your lawyer has to ask permission from abroad and you'll have to pay for them, no legal aid or numerous appeals.
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?).
1. 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.
2. The Scotland Act explicitly does not reserve obligations under EU law.
1. But subsequent legislation has introduced to capacity to withdraw, and defined a mechanism by which the country could decide whether or not to use it. That authorisation, from the people en mass - on the specific question referred to them by parliament - should be enough to call the prerogative out of abeyance.
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
1. The people have not given any such authorisation. The Referendum Act did not define a winning margin and it can only be for parliament to interpret the results. The mere fact of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not change the constitutional requirements of the UK to make a decision on withdrawal and does not grant any new prerogative power.
2. Correct, but withdrawal from the EU would change the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and as such amend the Scotland Act.
1. It's not a new power; it's an old one which has lain dormant pending appropriate authorisation. I would argue that more than 50% in a referendum legislated for by parliament, in which it was clear that a Leave vote meant leaving the EU, should be sufficient to raise it from that dormancy - but obviously we disagree.
2. But again, that outcome must have been contemplated and accepted as part of the referendum bill passage.
In strict legal terms the referendum was merely a large opinion poll from which no automatic consequences can follow. Whether it binds parliament and the government politically to respect the view expressed is another matter.
In a minimalist view, yes. But this whole question revolves around the status of the prerogative. One view is that the 1972 Act destroyed the prerogative for all time in respect of any action which might render that Act null; another is that it put it into a state of dormancy or abeyance, from which it might rise given the right circumstances. If the second view is right, then the question turns to what those circumstances are. In the absence of written criteria, the mandate encompassed in a national referendum has to form part of the consideration.
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.
I look forward to the hard Eurosceptic-Eurofederalists party! Their manifesto is going to be a fun read.
Where has 40% come from? Does it have some basis in polling or is it plucked from the air? Certainly that 3 option poll the other week did not have no Brexit under any circumstances at 40%.
I could live just fine with a good number of Brexit options resembling the above.
The majority of the 40% will be made up of Kippers and hard Brexiteers who will protest that 'this is not what we voted for!'
I'm a strong advocate that there needs to be something to show on immigration from a soft Brexit, whether or not the main immigration reductions are directly linked to Brexit or not. And a proper honesty resetting of the immigration debate around what immigration we will actually need in the future to balance our demographics without an endlessly growing population should also help. Get that right and much of the Hard Brexit fanaticism will evaporate.
I personally don't care about immigration at all, but I would have to agree. Even many remainers would put immigration as as major concern, and whatever the needs of it or that benefits or harm of it, there is little denying most people think we have too much and it needs reducing, how much being a matter od debate.
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 ththey were kicked out.
tly.
Agreed.
There are a fair few expats on this forum. I wonder what proportion live by TCPoliticalbetting s creed?
I do here in Spain and believe very strongly that it is my responsibility as an immigrant to learn the language and respect the local and national customs. Not all do so but that just makes them t***s in my opinion.
Hartley-Brewer's descent into cretinous, reactionary shock-jockery has been breakneck. Katie Hopkins' hooter must be well out of joint....
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing aboir colour - that was Otto English.
Doesn't she start by saying this s a largely white country?
So what - a simple statement of fact. I know you want to scream waycist and shut down any argument but you're on the wrong site for that approach - try Labour list or LDV.
Plenty of people have replied to your point, have any shouted you down? Some very negative indeed, but that's not the same thing. I'm not sensitive when it comes to these things, but emphasising the white and then saying people should integrate to fit that is at best careless language, since people cannot integrate their skin colour into something else. If the point was about integrating culturally it was poorly put. So even wth the most innocent of interpretations, her phrasing was bad since it distracted from the point with very little difficulty.
You are the third response and one has tried. Maybe you need your reading specs as I never used the word shout. Despite your claim you clearly are quite sensitive - if her language was a bit clumsy, get over it. The substantive point was sound and I practice what I preach.
British services PMI hits 10-month high, points to solid fourth quarter growth
Businesses in Britain's dominant services sector grew at their fastest pace since January last month and the broader economy maintained momentum, even if firms have some worries about the year ahead, a survey showed on Monday.
British services PMI hits 10-month high, points to solid fourth quarter growth
Businesses in Britain's dominant services sector grew at their fastest pace since January last month and the broader economy maintained momentum, even if firms have some worries about the year ahead, a survey showed on Monday.
Afternoon, all. I've been away in the BVI for a spot of yachting and diving (including the fantastic wreck of RMS Rhone), so I'm just catching up now on developments.
One point which strikes me is that the Italian referendum result might be quite helpful to the UK Brexit negotiations; our EU friends are clearly nervous, and it looks as though Greece is also bubbling up into trouble again. In such a scenario, dampening down further dislocation from a messy UK exit is going to be a higher priority than it would otherwise. The outline of a deal as posted by @MaxPB a few minutes ago would make sense, although of course there's no guarantee that it will be politically possible.
I think it would be as long as it comes with a guillotine clause to force both sides to work for ratification of the ISDS, it would tie the hands of the EU who would obviously prefer us to stay under ECJ jurisdiction and it would tie our hands as we obviously want unfettered access to the single market. In the two year timeframe it seems impossible to achieve a bilateral deal for an ISDS which will require ratification in all 34(?) national and regional Parliaments in Europe. If we set a 5-7 year countdown it could be done. Especially if the UK agrees to ECJ jurisdiction in the interim. Given that CETA includes an ISDS provision I don't think it will be impossible to achieve for the EU or UK.
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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Please elucidate on why she started her tweet with 'this is a largely white country', oh wise one.
Why shouldn't she - it's an accurate statement of fact - time to get off the outrage bus dear.
Ah, just an arbitrary fact plucked from the air, with no relevance to the subject being discussed. How thick must J.H-B be if she manages to stumble completely off piste within 140 characters.
I'd suggest it's time to stop defending racist morons, if I was in the slightest bit attracted to pissing in the wind.
And yet you do it anyway - I'm shocked I tell you - shocked. Maybe because you think screaming ' waycist ' ends all argument. Supremely funny coming from the Scot Nat perspective. Heigh ho.
'Outrage bus' + 'waycist' x running away from actually addressing any point made = a bear of very little brain. If there was any doubt.
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'?
JHB in the tweet shown said nothing about people trying to change their colour - that was Otto English.
Please elucidate on why she started her tweet with 'this is a largely white country', oh wise one.
Why shouldn't she - it's an accurate statement of fact - time to get off the outrage bus dear.
Ah, just an arbitrary fact plucked from the air, with no relevance to the subject being discussed. How thick must J.H-B be if she manages to stumble completely off piste within 140 characters.
I'd suggest it's time to stop defending racist morons, if I was in the slightest bit attracted to pissing in the wind.
And yet you do it anyway - I'm shocked I tell you - shocked. Maybe because you think screaming ' waycist ' ends all argument. Supremely funny coming from the Scot Nat perspective. Heigh ho.
'Outrage bus' + 'waycist' x running away from actually addressing any point made = a bear of very little brain. If there was any doubt.
The only point you want to make is accuse JHB of being a 'racist moron' and you then insult my brain to boot. such depth of logic and reason would have Hume et al turning in their graves. The best solution would be a standard IQ test before anyone can vote, post on PB or live in Scotland. Next.
Ian Jones Divorces in England & Wales are now at their lowest for 40 years, and are down a third on their post-war peak in 1993. https://t.co/rOVf1m3DHH
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
No. Nor should we be blind to the political consequences of The Supreme Court, then Parliament thwarting what people believed they had decided.
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
No. Nor should we be blind to the political consequences of The Supreme Court, then Parliament thwarting what people believed they had decided.
Surely all laws have their origins in the social mores and customs of the people. And they all ultimately depend on the consent of the people in order to work.
Thanks JonnyJimmy, I had a quick look this morning for what JHB was replying to but couldn't find it. My advice to JHB is don't reply to such stupid tweets as it wouldn't surprise me if they're looking to get you to tweet something that can look bad when taken out of context.
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
No. Nor should we be blind to the political consequences of The Supreme Court, then Parliament thwarting what people believed they had decided.
The people did not really decide, Miss Vance. They were given a choice between a leap in the dark, and a leap in the dark. And the whole ting was deliberately muddled by the leading Tory politicians. Cameron is and was a very foolish man.
Afternoon, all. I've been away in the BVI for a spot of yachting and diving (including the fantastic wreck of RMS Rhone), so I'm just catching up now on developments.
One point which strikes me is that the Italian referendum result might be quite helpful to the UK Brexit negotiations; our EU friends are clearly nervous, and it looks as though Greece is also bubbling up into trouble again. In such a scenario, dampening down further dislocation from a messy UK exit is going to be a higher priority than it would otherwise. The outline of a deal as posted by @MaxPB a few minutes ago would make sense, although of course there's no guarantee that it will be politically possible.
Did you visit Anegada? I don't suppose you fancy buying a delightful piece of real estate with its own beach?
Thanks JonnyJimmy, I had a quick look this morning for what JHB was replying to but couldn't find it. My advice to JHB is don't reply to such stupid tweets as it wouldn't surprise me if they're looking to get you to tweet something that can look bad when taken out of context.
That's twitter summed up...140 characters + difficult to properly follow the trail of the exchange = things looking bad as taken out of context.
"..."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.
Using the ravages of war as a hook for joking about foreign names looking alien is funny?
Yes it is. You've never encountered darker comedy than that?
Quite interested in James Eadie's delivery here. It is unusual (in my experience). He takes them to a passage and invites them to read it rather than reading it out. It seems to me the technique has the advantage that you are much less likely to be interrupted, because there is nothing to interrupt. Going to try this.
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
No. Nor should we be blind to the political consequences of The Supreme Court, then Parliament thwarting what people believed they had decided.
Surely all laws have their origins in the social mores and customs of the people. And they all ultimately depend on the consent of the people in order to work.
We must always bear in mind:
Alice More: Arrest him! More: Why, what has he done? Margaret More: He's bad! More: There is no law against that. Will Roper: There is! God's law! More: Then God can arrest him. Alice: While you talk, he's gone! More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
Jeremy Vine tweets: So why are we being told that people who voted #Brexit didn't know this involved leaving the single market?
After an online voodoo poll (14,000 respondents) which showed 80:20 people did know leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.....(they must have heard Cameron & Osborne mention it several times...)
You are the third response and one has tried. Maybe you need your reading specs as I never used the word shout. Despite your claim you clearly are quite sensitive - if her language was a bit clumsy, get over it. The substantive point was sound and I practice what I preach.
i think my language has been quite reasonable. And you're right, you didn't use the word shout, you used scream, are you seriously telling me the substantive point was lost with the different use of the words? If anything shout is more moderate language than you used. You are displaying the sort of snowflake sensitivity you are moaning about, using mocking terminology like waycist, telling people this is the wrong place to raise their points (in essence trying to scream them down from raising them) and yet you quibble over synonyms?
And you seem to have missed the crucial point that I happen to agree people should integrate more, and are arguing as though I think that basic point was racist, which it isn't. I won't use the language to describe that sort of reaction, responding to any critique as though it is an attack to the point of undermining oneself though stubborness and seeing opponents where there are none, that it deserves, frankly.
The language being clumsy was a criticism in that it undermined the point she presumably was making, not that it offended my delicate sensibilities - if people misinterpret what you are saying, sometimes that cannot be helped as people are determined to misinterpret, and you clearly feel that is the case here (even though I for one do think people should integrate more), but it shouldn't hurt your or indeed her precious feelings that others feel the point could have been expressed better. I have no doubt someone could summarise the points I am making here in a better manner than I am managing.
And you know what? I wouldn't throw a strop and act like a victim if they told me that. And I should know, uniondivvie manages to wind me up all the time. It annoys even more for clumsy points one agrees with to be misinterpretable than clumsy ones one does not.
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
No. Nor should we be blind to the political consequences of The Supreme Court, then Parliament thwarting what people believed they had decided.
Surely all laws have their origins in the social mores and customs of the people. And they all ultimately depend on the consent of the people in order to work.
We must always bear in mind:
Alice More: Arrest him! More: Why, what has he done? Margaret More: He's bad! More: There is no law against that. Will Roper: There is! God's law! More: Then God can arrest him. Alice: While you talk, he's gone! More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
I am not really sure why I chose to be a lawyer but that passage was certainly a major factor. I absolutely loved that play and that speech.
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.
So we should adjudicate on laws based on popular belief? It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
No. Nor should we be blind to the political consequences of The Supreme Court, then Parliament thwarting what people believed they had decided.
Surely all laws have their origins in the social mores and customs of the people. And they all ultimately depend on the consent of the people in order to work.
This is why you get juries letting people off when it is clear that they have broken the law, but have done so for what the jurors think is a good reason - e.g. people not convicted of trespass when trying to stop fracking or whatever.
Jeremy Vine tweets: So why are we being told that people who voted #Brexit didn't know this involved leaving the single market?
After an online voodoo poll (14,000 respondents) which showed 80:20 people did know leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.....(they must have heard Cameron & Osborne mention it several times...)
Anyone care to answer Jeremy's question?
People are being misleading its politics. Many people said it meant leaving, plenty of people will and do believe that that did not mean it certainly meant leaving, but that it possibly or probably meant it. But it'd be a stretch to say people had no idea that's what it could mean, even if they thought it was not certain.
Mr. Herdson, the BBC news last night had a wonderfully one-sided chap reporting on the court case.
On the one side we had 'independent judges' and the 'representatives of the people' in Parliament. On the other, the 'royal prerogative' a leftover from days when kings could do whatever they liked.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih41z-Oq8hQ
2. An obligation under EU law is different from the question of membership of the EU.
It's a potential legal framework, I suppose, but not one in which I'd ever like to live. We could get rid of lawyers and judges and have all cases determined by popular choice. The law is whatever the people choose it to be at that time.
Or - it is possible that the people asked might not have had a detailed knowledge of the law and constitution.
2. Correct, but withdrawal from the EU would change the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and as such amend the Scotland Act.
There are a fair few expats on this forum. I wonder what proportion live by TCPoliticalbetting s creed?
http://order-order.com/2016/12/05/naz-shah-attends-extremist-linked-group/
Any sensible politician should be checking out who the hell these groups are and doing everything possible to give them a wide berth.
What a dangerous world we are entering. This will end in disaster if we carry on the witch hunting and insane levels of false rage about every little step in the process of Brexit.
Where is Robespierre when you need him?
In short, the first sentence of your point 1 does not lead to the second sentence. The first is a fact; the second is an opinion which is divergent with existing constitutional law.
2. But again, that outcome must have been contemplated and accepted as part of the referendum bill passage.
One point which strikes me is that the Italian referendum result might be quite helpful to the UK Brexit negotiations; our EU friends are clearly nervous, and it looks as though Greece is also bubbling up into trouble again. In such a scenario, dampening down further dislocation from a messy UK exit is going to be a higher priority than it would otherwise. The outline of a deal as posted by @MaxPB a few minutes ago would make sense, although of course there's no guarantee that it will be politically possible.
Where has 40% come from? Does it have some basis in polling or is it plucked from the air? Certainly that 3 option poll the other week did not have no Brexit under any circumstances at 40%.
I could live just fine with a good number of Brexit options resembling the above.
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/805739106831581184
Now that Trump has been elected, I see that "was in the same place as" smears are back in fashion.
As I said, any sensible politician should be checking out who these groups are before agreeing to attend events. If Britain First or BNP were being hosted, I would expect any sensible politician to do the same and give them a wide berth, unless they were attending with the specific intentions of debating against them e.g the QT against Nick Griffin.
I could live just fine with a good number of Brexit options resembling the above.
I think its just plucked from the air. Assuming most people who voted remain are happy with a softer than a harder brexit (which is not universally the case, for a variety of reasons) and that a reasonable percentage of Brexiters are happy with a softish Brexit, and you can get to 60-65% fairly comfortably.
'The story about there being a disgruntled civil servant was actually made up by a disgruntled civil servant.'
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/805700954251259904
Although the Government has since fallen due to resignation, the replacement Government has also pledged to place it into action. They should therefore submit - at the earliest possible time - a Bill to Parliament to authorise them to exercise Article 50 at a time of their choosing.
Should it fail, they should seek a new election, either by putting that to Parliament, amending the FTPA, or engineering a confidence vote (which would be easily defensible as "Parliament does not have confidence in us to authorise the Article 50 Bill; we are simply making that explicit").
I thought it was Ok to be anti Zionist (a political position) but not OK to be anti Jew (a religion).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7702913.stm
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/ben-carson-housing-urban-development-trump.html?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/
Strong demand from businesses for fleet vehicles compensated for the fall in individual buyers, lifting overall sales by 2.9 percent to 184,101 vehicles in November, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-autos-registrations-idUKKBN13U0WU?il=0
Question...I presume leases from a leasing company i.e. in a personal capacity, not via your job, counts as the business sale as the leasing company buys the vehicle and you lease it from them for 2-3 years.
This option has increasing become popular, following the trend in the US. I presume that could be driving the increase in business vs personal.
I'd suggest it's time to stop defending racist morons, if I was in the slightest bit attracted to pissing in the wind.
Businesses in Britain's dominant services sector grew at their fastest pace since January last month and the broader economy maintained momentum, even if firms have some worries about the year ahead, a survey showed on Monday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-economy-pmi-idUSKBN13U0XG
The difference is that most other countries, unlike Britain, make sure that you know you're there as a guest - and that if you overstay your welcome you will quickly find yourself deported. If you want to get back in, your lawyer has to ask permission from abroad and you'll have to pay for them, no legal aid or numerous appeals.
If there was any doubt.
Because she was replying to this?
https://twitter.com/LucyMayblin/status/805722722328313856
Divorces in England & Wales are now at their lowest for 40 years, and are down a third on their post-war peak in 1993. https://t.co/rOVf1m3DHH
The more I see of Klopp, the more impressed I am.
Look at Pep and Jose then compare and contrast to his response to the 4-3.
A big club will come for him soon.
Alice More: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
After an online voodoo poll (14,000 respondents) which showed 80:20 people did know leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.....(they must have heard Cameron & Osborne mention it several times...)
Anyone care to answer Jeremy's question?
And you seem to have missed the crucial point that I happen to agree people should integrate more, and are arguing as though I think that basic point was racist, which it isn't. I won't use the language to describe that sort of reaction, responding to any critique as though it is an attack to the point of undermining oneself though stubborness and seeing opponents where there are none, that it deserves, frankly.
The language being clumsy was a criticism in that it undermined the point she presumably was making, not that it offended my delicate sensibilities - if people misinterpret what you are saying, sometimes that cannot be helped as people are determined to misinterpret, and you clearly feel that is the case here (even though I for one do think people should integrate more), but it shouldn't hurt your or indeed her precious feelings that others feel the point could have been expressed better. I have no doubt someone could summarise the points I am making here in a better manner than I am managing.
And you know what? I wouldn't throw a strop and act like a victim if they told me that. And I should know, uniondivvie manages to wind me up all the time. It annoys even more for clumsy points one agrees with to be misinterpretable than clumsy ones one does not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7449927.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/05/gunman-detained-at-comet-pizza-restaurant-was-self-investigating-fake-news-reports
On the one side we had 'independent judges' and the 'representatives of the people' in Parliament. On the other, the 'royal prerogative' a leftover from days when kings could do whatever they liked.