He's also an actor by trade. Really, anyone trying to use FakeNews to make a case is on very thin ice given how often the MSM has been responsible for it.
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.
The risk being that the judge then reads the next bit that says the precedent you are pitching explicitly does not apply in this case...
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.
In fact, fewer people knew that the two issues could be separated - that leaving the EU didn't necessarily entail having to leave the Single Market.
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.
Written by a humble teacher at Millfield. Who'd have thought.....
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.
The risk being that the judge then reads the next bit that says the precedent you are pitching explicitly does not apply in this case...
Ah but when you read that there is even more risk of that. All Judges listen with one ear whilst reading about the passage relied upon and it takes longer to read it.
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.
The risk being that the judge then reads the next bit that says the precedent you are pitching explicitly does not apply in this case...
Haha! The tone of the interventions from the judges so far doesn't give much hope that the government stand a chance of winning.
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?
BBC live blog highlighting lack of diversity in the court room.
"Posted at 11:50 Courtesy of the TV cameras we have had a good look around the inside of the courtroom, and it does not look like the most diverse crowd...""
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.
I bet this is one where the answer depends heavily on exactly how the question is worded. "Do you think the Prime Minister should be able to overrule a majority vote in the House of Commons?" (I know that's not quite the same question, just making a point.)
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?
The voters have only a very vague idea what the single market is.
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.
One is tempted to say you need to lie down or have a cuppa. I think we are on the same side regarding TUD and maybe you should have left our little contretemps alone. I have no problem with JHB's language especially given the tweet we now know she was responding to. My point as an immigrant living in Spain was to accept a duty to learn the language and integrate - as I believe all immigrant wherever they be should also do. It's not being a 'snowflake' to challenge those who try to use terms like racist to stop debate. My point was that those who try to do this on this forum can expect to be challenged. I think you are being quite obtuse in trying to turn my point on its head in that way.
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?
The voters have only a very vague idea what the single market is.
Then that is the voters' fault. It is not grounds for complaint, theirs or anyone else's.
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.
The risk being that the judge then reads the next bit that says the precedent you are pitching explicitly does not apply in this case...
Haha! The tone of the interventions from the judges so far doesn't give much hope that the government stand a chance of winning.
I honestly don't think you can read too much into that. The Justices are testing the argument and when the respondents speak they will get the same. This is a genuinely tough audience. Exactly as it should be.
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?
The voters have only a very vague idea what the single market is.
The huge gaping flaw in the whole referendum fiasco becomes increasingly clear. What was on the ballot paper - leaving the European Union. What does that actually mean? Not spelt out on the ballot paper and therefore open to interpretation.
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.
Ah who can forget that speech - and that wonderful film.
Why are you still blaming the guy who said this would be a disaster, campaigned against this disaster and voted against this disaster?
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
He said it would be a disaster but only a few months before that he'd been saying it would be fine...
As Juncker said after the referendum: “If you are telling people for years that something is wrong with the union, you cannot be taken by surprise if voters believe you.”
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.
In fact, fewer people knew that the two issues could be separated - that leaving the EU didn't necessarily entail having to leave the Single Market.
Alternatively, quite a lot of people knew that Switzerland and Norway had a looser (and cheaper) relationship with the EU, and thought something like that might be appropriate.
A certain Ms Palin writes regarding the deal to keep 1,000 Carrier Inc jobs in Indiana:
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
Why are you still blaming the guy who said this would be a disaster, campaigned against this disaster and voted against this disaster?
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
He said it would be a disaster but only a few months before that he'd been saying it would be fine...
As Juncker said after the referendum: “If you are telling people for years that something is wrong with the union, you cannot be taken by surprise if voters believe you.”
Horse crap
the EU has been in existence for most of my adult life, always tells me what a cracking job it does and has a huge budget to promote it's 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.
But, but, but we've been assured JHB merely introduced 'this is a largely white country' as an arbitrary fact, signifying nothing!
The tweet she was actually responding to was this.
A certain Ms Palin writes regarding the deal to keep 1,000 Carrier Inc jobs in Indiana:
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
The "politicsisation" of the judiciary in the public minds by the Brexit is truly offensive. There is very little difference between them and the far left on this score.
Some are criticises judges for being unelected. For some reason, that does not apply to the House of Lords !
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.
In fact, fewer people knew that the two issues could be separated - that leaving the EU didn't necessarily entail having to leave the Single Market.
As long as voters accept no change on migration. But when immigration reduction was the primary motivation for voting Leave and certainly made the difference between a Remain win and a Leave one, the two issues are completely conflated.
There's nothing stopping Theresa May standing up and saying "Brexit means Brexit, the EEA, the Single Market, full freedom of movement and the indirect jurisdiction of the ECJ". Nothing that is, except her fear of UKIP and a very assertive faction within her party. So she doesn't say that and therefore leaving the EU does mean leaving the Single Market
A certain Ms Palin writes regarding the deal to keep 1,000 Carrier Inc jobs in Indiana:
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
"I can see the Adam Smith Institute from my house"
A certain Ms Palin writes regarding the deal to keep 1,000 Carrier Inc jobs in Indiana:
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
"I can see the Adam Smith Institute from my house"
A certain Ms Palin writes regarding the deal to keep 1,000 Carrier Inc jobs in Indiana:
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
"I can see the Adam Smith Institute from my house"
A certain Ms Palin writes regarding the deal to keep 1,000 Carrier Inc jobs in Indiana:
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
Well written and very true. As surprised as I am to agree with its author.
The "politicsisation" of the judiciary in the public minds by the Brexit is truly offensive. There is very little difference between them and the far left on this score.
Some are criticises judges for being unelected. For some reason, that does not apply to the House of Lords !
It definitely does. I'm critical of both for example!
The "politicsisation" of the judiciary in the public minds by the Brexit is truly offensive. There is very little difference between them and the far left on this score.
Some are criticises judges for being unelected. For some reason, that does not apply to the House of Lords !
I'll think you'll find many of the people complaining about judges being criticised are the same people who attack the House of Lords, as I pointed out in a previous thread.
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?
The voters have only a very vague idea what the single market is.
The huge gaping flaw in the whole referendum fiasco becomes increasingly clear. What was on the ballot paper - leaving the European Union. What does that actually mean? Not spelt out on the ballot paper and therefore open to interpretation.
What a disaster Cameron has inflicted on us.
This was mentioned before the vote. But Brexiters chose to ignore it as it suited them. In the end, we will get Brexit but, for all practical purposes , we will be in the EU without a vote. Paying money to be a law taker and not a law maker.
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.
Very true and a shame that so many of the politically correct hand wringers do not have any idea how most of the world operates.
Why are you still blaming the guy who said this would be a disaster, campaigned against this disaster and voted against this disaster?
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
[What a disaster Cameron has inflicted on us. He is responsible] Because he allowed the question to be asked and the manner.
Agreed. But I think it would be disingenuous for someone to have kept calling for a referendum, then criticise the exercise while celebrating the result.
A certain Ms Palin writes regarding the deal to keep 1,000 Carrier Inc jobs in Indiana:
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
Well written and very true. As surprised as I am to agree with its author.
Astonishing that it should be Sarah Palin who reveals the gigantic fault line through modern GOP politics post-Trump. But there you go. 2016 is strange.
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?
The voters have only a very vague idea what the single market is.
The huge gaping flaw in the whole referendum fiasco becomes increasingly clear. What was on the ballot paper - leaving the European Union. What does that actually mean? Not spelt out on the ballot paper and therefore open to interpretation.
What a disaster Cameron has inflicted on us.
This was mentioned before the vote. But Brexiters chose to ignore it as it suited them. In the end, we will get Brexit but, for all practical purposes , we will be in the EU without a vote. Paying money to be a law taker and not a law maker.
No, we get that IF our Government chooses to go down that road, as WE mentioned several times before the vote.
Out means out as far as I can see - if the world suddenly gets the notion that it isn't interested in British consumers' disposable income, recriminations can duly follow.
Has anyone bet on this judgement's result? I've had a nibble on the government winning...
On the odds available, that has to be where the value is.
The only way they government could win would be if the Supreme Court effectively created a new convention that all referendums are binding by default. As this would be a clear case of judicial activism and political interference from the judiciary I trust the tabloid press would take a very dim view of it...
A certain Ms Palin writes regarding the deal to keep 1,000 Carrier Inc jobs in Indiana:
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
Well written and very true. As surprised as I am to agree with its author.
The first 5 minutes after lunch are always a bit hairy. These are not the sort of people you want to have time to mull over and discuss what you have been saying when you are still a target.
Why are you still blaming the guy who said this would be a disaster, campaigned against this disaster and voted against this disaster?
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
He said it would be a disaster but only a few months before that he'd been saying it would be fine...
As Juncker said after the referendum: “If you are telling people for years that something is wrong with the union, you cannot be taken by surprise if voters believe you.”
Horse crap
the EU has been in existence for most of my adult life, always tells me what a cracking job it does and has a huge budget to promote it's work.
On your criteria it should have won hands down
"Always tells me"? Were you subscribed to its newsletters? Most of us hardly heard a dicky bird from the EU. What we have heard a lot of for the last 20-30 years is newspapers and politicians moaning about the EU - about how much we pay in, about immigration, about "unelected eurocrats" and how we've lost control of our laws. You know, the reasons that people who voted Leave regurgitated. It's been a convenient bogieman. I wonder who or what will take that role in future.
Comments
"Posted at
11:50
Courtesy of the TV cameras we have had a good look around the inside of the courtroom, and it does not look like the most diverse crowd...""
Possible grounds for appeal for the remainers ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
What a disaster Cameron has inflicted on us.
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
Seriously? These guys are just nuts.
May could implement Article 50 tomorrow. This is a fight over procedure.
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”
The Pinky Pinky Kanshi Radio, 30 June 2016, 01:59 and 1 September 2016, 00:05 complaint
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/95137/Issue-318-of-Ofcoms-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin,-to-be-published-on-5-December-2016-revision-01.pdf
the EU has been in existence for most of my adult life, always tells me what a cracking job it does and has a huge budget to promote it's work.
On your criteria it should have won hands down
Intriguingly that Carrier Inc deal is one of the few areas where Paul Krugman and Sarah Palin are on the same side!
The tweet she was actually responding to was this.
https://twitter.com/LucyMayblin/status/805717323747381248
and was in turn responded to by this.
https://twitter.com/LucyMayblin/status/805723381257633792
Of course, Asst. Professor Mayblin shows dangerous signs of being an 'expert'.
Some are criticises judges for being unelected. For some reason, that does not apply to the House of Lords !
There's nothing stopping Theresa May standing up and saying "Brexit means Brexit, the EEA, the Single Market, full freedom of movement and the indirect jurisdiction of the ECJ". Nothing that is, except her fear of UKIP and a very assertive faction within her party. So she doesn't say that and therefore leaving the EU does mean leaving the Single Market
It definitely does. I'm critical of both for example!
Be careful what you wish for.
Currently cruising over Kent:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zz336#bcec03b
My heart bleeds...
Out means out as far as I can see - if the world suddenly gets the notion that it isn't interested in British consumers' disposable income, recriminations can duly follow.
http://hurryupharry.org/2016/12/03/its-not-good-news-for-everyone/