This is not a proper court. I've not heard one person shout "objection", nor has anyone been asked to "approach the bench". Poor show indeed.
Gotta save the drama for day 3, no doubt, to ramp people up for the final day.
The lack of robes is a disgrace - our Justices have much cooler robes than the american justices, and how often do they get to wear them?
It would make my month if one of them dared get the phrase "you can't handle to truth" into proceedings
"With respect, my lords, pertaining to the question of truth in this matter, considering the precedents espoused and the legislative norms detailed at some length, it is our contention that the parties, and perhaps indeed some of their lordships, have demonstrated they find themselves insufficient to process the fundamentals of this particular truth."
I do not think the Government will win their case and I do accept the judges will make their decision based on law and not outside influences.
However, away from the Courts there does seem to be a growing attempt to delay and frustrate A50 by labour and the lib dems. Labour are intent on putting in amendments to the A50 process that will make it impossible for the government to negotiate a deal.
This morning Diane Abbott absolutely declared that labour want access to the single market and no restriction on free movement of labour. She just doesn't understand how toxic this is for labour but then how can anyone understand Dianne Abbott unless you move in the London left elite circle of out of touch MP's
I would expect that these attempts to frustrate the process will spark a backlash from not only leavers but many remainers, like myself, who accepted the result and expect the government to serve A50 asap and just get on with it
Interesting piece from the Post on the relative accuracy of hand- and machine-counting of votes. The overall verdict. Both methods are very accurate, but machine counting is slightly more accurate (0.26% vs 0.18% error). No big surprise there.
I do not think the Government will win their case and I do accept the judges will make their decision based on law and not outside influences.
However, away from the Courts there does seem to be a growing attempt to delay and frustrate A50 by labour and the lib dems. Labour are intent on putting in amendments to the A50 process that will make it impossible for the government to negotiate a deal.
This morning Diane Abbott absolutely declared that labour want access to the single market and no restriction on free movement of labour. She just doesn't understand how toxic this is for labour but then how can anyone understand Dianne Abbott unless you move in the London left elite circle of out of touch MP's
I would expect that these attempts to frustrate the process will spark a backlash from not only leavers but many remainers, like myself, who accepted the result and expect the government to serve A50 asap and just get on with it
I don't know what Labour are planning. Other reports say they do not intend to be seen to be preventing Brexit, even in the Lords, even if they might try some amendments. I think they know the potential risks. The LDs the can do what they like, they are not a factor, numbers wise, if Labour play ball, even if they mess about a bit first.
I do not think the Government will win their case and I do accept the judges will make their decision based on law and not outside influences.
However, away from the Courts there does seem to be a growing attempt to delay and frustrate A50 by labour and the lib dems. Labour are intent on putting in amendments to the A50 process that will make it impossible for the government to negotiate a deal.
This morning Diane Abbott absolutely declared that labour want access to the single market and no restriction on free movement of labour. She just doesn't understand how toxic this is for labour but then how can anyone understand Dianne Abbott unless you move in the London left elite circle of out of touch MP's
I would expect that these attempts to frustrate the process will spark a backlash from not only leavers but many remainers, like myself, who accepted the result and expect the government to serve A50 asap and just get on with it
I don't know what Labour are planning. Other reports say they do not intend to be seen to be preventing Brexit, even in the Lords, even if they might try some amendments. I think they know the potential risks. The LDs the can do what they like, they are not a factor, numbers wise, if Labour play ball, even if they mess about a bit first.
Is preventing hard Brexit, or preventing soft Brexit, the same as preventing Brexit?
If it looks like the government will go for Norway +, aka Cameron -, will Brexiteers be justified in trying to prevent it?
Been working at home so had a bit of this on in the background since lunch. Not having watched this sort of thing I've been quite struck by the conversational format..
I do not think the Government will win their case and I do accept the judges will make their decision based on law and not outside influences.
However, away from the Courts there does seem to be a growing attempt to delay and frustrate A50 by labour and the lib dems. Labour are intent on putting in amendments to the A50 process that will make it impossible for the government to negotiate a deal.
This morning Diane Abbott absolutely declared that labour want access to the single market and no restriction on free movement of labour. She just doesn't understand how toxic this is for labour but then how can anyone understand Dianne Abbott unless you move in the London left elite circle of out of touch MP's
I would expect that these attempts to frustrate the process will spark a backlash from not only leavers but many remainers, like myself, who accepted the result and expect the government to serve A50 asap and just get on with it
I don't know what Labour are planning. Other reports say they do not intend to be seen to be preventing Brexit, even in the Lords, even if they might try some amendments. I think they know the potential risks. The LDs the can do what they like, they are not a factor, numbers wise, if Labour play ball, even if they mess about a bit first.
Is preventing hard Brexit, or preventing soft Brexit, the same as preventing Brexit?
Not in my view. While I have a preference, one which may or may not be shared by the majority of the public, in the absence of options on the ballot and in the presence of various reasons for people to vote Leave, as long as Leave, in some form, occurs, then the only definitive expression of the popular will has been met.
If it looks like the government will go for Norway +, aka Cameron -, will Brexiteers be justified in trying to prevent it?
I think people are legally free and thus justified in trying to prevent anything, even up to Remaining. I think democratically and politically the latter is far less justifiable, Richmond notwithstanding I see no evidence trying to prevent rather than modulate has much support, but in terms of pushing for Brexit types, I think everyone is free to advocate for their preferred model, and the government justified in taking any of them.
The Brexit war was won. The Brexit Peace has been ongoing for months and still is. So Hard Brexiters are justified in trying to prevent Soft Brext, and Soft Brexiters are justified trying to prevent Hard Brexit.
If I read it right, it seems to come down to whether one thinks Parliament needed to state certain things in the 2015 Act to give them effect, or if it was so obvious certain things were needed. as implied by government statements, that the lack of words in the act specifying they did not apply means that they must do.
I do not think the Government will win their case and I do accept the judges will make their decision based on law and not outside influences.
However, away from the Courts there does seem to be a growing attempt to delay and frustrate A50 by labour and the lib dems. Labour are intent on putting in amendments to the A50 process that will make it impossible for the government to negotiate a deal.
This morning Diane Abbott absolutely declared that labour want access to the single market and no restriction on free movement of labour. She just doesn't understand how toxic this is for labour but then how can anyone understand Dianne Abbott unless you move in the London left elite circle of out of touch MP's
I would expect that these attempts to frustrate the process will spark a backlash from not only leavers but many remainers, like myself, who accepted the result and expect the government to serve A50 asap and just get on with it
I don't know what Labour are planning. Other reports say they do not intend to be seen to be preventing Brexit, even in the Lords, even if they might try some amendments. I think they know the potential risks. The LDs the can do what they like, they are not a factor, numbers wise, if Labour play ball, even if they mess about a bit first.
Is preventing hard Brexit, or preventing soft Brexit, the same as preventing Brexit?
If it looks like the government will go for Norway +, aka Cameron -, will Brexiteers be justified in trying to prevent it?
I think the answer to the possible deal will need to be considered by the HOC and as long as the agreement has access to the single market and permits control of movement, as well as permitting UK to make trade deals of it's own, it will receive widespread support. The middle way has to be the way and those that want a soft or hard Brexit are likely to be disappointed
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
Whoops ! < The Independent: Government response to report demanding immigrants improve English skills misspells 'integration' http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwuOmF5jA
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
Surely the answer is simply to look back at the devolution referendum and how it was enacted thereafter?
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
Playing devil's advocate, in the absence of anything stating anything other than a simple majority was decisive, as a matter of longstanding convention simple majorities are the norm in Britain? I actually think for matters of sufficient important perhaps there should be thresholds, but in the absence of something specifying one I'd think there would be no need.
Switching back for a moment to the leaked memo about how there needs to be action to stop leaking, what did they think would happen? I can think of few things that would be more likely to be leaked.
Leaking that one is the best way of communicating it, and was probably deliberate
Government Lawyer getting bit more animated toward the end of the day.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
Judges didn't like his comments about how ordinary people view this process
Well it was a bit snide, and they did open the day saying they weren't focusing on the politics of Brexit, and the public view will definitely be that, since most of us are not constitutional lawyers. Whether parliament had in essence delegated the decision to the public through their actions was an argument making the same point less bluntly perhaps.
Damn and blast, had a splendid reply to Mr. Submarine and it was lost to the ether!
You shall simply have to imagine the splendid historical rambling, and my comment on the EU probably collapsing during my lifetime with at least civil strife, and possible a small war.
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
Surely the answer is simply to look back at the devolution referendum and how it was enacted thereafter?
You could argue that the fact that a Scottish independence reference was held set a precedent of self-determination for the Scottish people while would imply a majority would need to be obtained in Scotland in order to give authority to leave the EU.
Government Lawyer getting bit more animated toward the end of the day.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
Judges didn't like his comments about how ordinary people view this process
Well it was a bit snide, and they did open the day saying they weren't focusing on the politics of Brexit, and the public view will definitely be that, since most of us are not constitutional lawyers. Whether parliament had in essence delegated the decision to the public through their actions was an argument making the same point less bluntly perhaps.
I think that Parliament delegated the decision to the public is how the man on the Clapham bus will see it
Government Lawyer getting bit more animated toward the end of the day.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
Judges didn't like his comments about how ordinary people view this process
Well it was a bit snide, and they did open the day saying they weren't focusing on the politics of Brexit, and the public view will definitely be that, since most of us are not constitutional lawyers. Whether parliament had in essence delegated the decision to the public through their actions was an argument making the same point less bluntly perhaps.
I think that Parliament delegated the decision to the public is how the man on the Clapham bus will see it
If the man on the Clapham omnibus is under 30, he's likely to be a remainer, and if he's over 30 he's a failure, by definition.
Government Lawyer getting bit more animated toward the end of the day.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
Judges didn't like his comments about how ordinary people view this process
Well it was a bit snide, and they did open the day saying they weren't focusing on the politics of Brexit, and the public view will definitely be that, since most of us are not constitutional lawyers. Whether parliament had in essence delegated the decision to the public through their actions was an argument making the same point less bluntly perhaps.
I think that Parliament delegated the decision to the public is how the man on the Clapham bus will see it
Yes it is, but that does not itself mean it legally happened if it was not specified in the act, whereas the government lawyer was arguing the intention was clear even if it was not specified, so the question becomes was that enough, legally. If previous referendums specified if the result must be brought into law, and how, then it would seem a very simple answer of no it isn't, so I presume the point of law must be more complicated or it will be very easily refuted (or would never have been rejected in the first place). The direction of travel was given over to us, the public, but we were not necessarily, simultaneously, asked to granted authority for it to become law without parliament confirming it. We shall see - as argued, it does sound like the government is saying all referendums should be binding, a principle many will like, but which has not been seen as the case up to now.
Government Lawyer getting bit more animated toward the end of the day.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
Judges didn't like his comments about how ordinary people view this process
Well it was a bit snide, and they did open the day saying they weren't focusing on the politics of Brexit, and the public view will definitely be that, since most of us are not constitutional lawyers. Whether parliament had in essence delegated the decision to the public through their actions was an argument making the same point less bluntly perhaps.
I think that Parliament delegated the decision to the public is how the man on the Clapham bus will see it
Surely t'other way around? The public delegates most decisions to Parliament but chose (by electing a Conservative government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum) to keep this decision for themselves.
Government Lawyer getting bit more animated toward the end of the day.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
Judges didn't like his comments about how ordinary people view this process
Well it was a bit snide, and they did open the day saying they weren't focusing on the politics of Brexit, and the public view will definitely be that, since most of us are not constitutional lawyers. Whether parliament had in essence delegated the decision to the public through their actions was an argument making the same point less bluntly perhaps.
I think that Parliament delegated the decision to the public is how the man on the Clapham bus will see it
Surely t'other way around? The public delegates most decisions to Parliament but chose (by electing a Conservative government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum) to keep this decision for themselves.
Parliament is sovereign, not the people. Isn't that meant to be the difference between us and america - there power flows up from the people, here it flows down from the crown?
Edit: I'm just teasing. In practice we accept the public are where authority comes from, but when it comes to the technical details of how parliament's power is directed and delegated, that is left to parliament and the courts I'd have thought, as it is too arcane for people to follow otherwise.
Damn and blast, had a splendid reply to Mr. Submarine and it was lost to the ether!
You shall simply have to imagine the splendid historical rambling, and my comment on the EU probably collapsing during my lifetime with at least civil strife, and possible a small war.
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
Playing devil's advocate, in the absence of anything stating anything other than a simple majority was decisive, as a matter of longstanding convention simple majorities are the norm in Britain? I actually think for matters of sufficient important perhaps there should be thresholds, but in the absence of something specifying one I'd think there would be no need.
"Longstanding convention " Setting aside the fact referendums themselves aren't a long-standing convention in the UK, this was only the third UK level one we've had, the ones we've had have been varied. AV was binding, this one wasn't. The Welsh and Scottish referendums in 1979 were both post legislative AND had minimum turnout thresholds. Which in Scotland's case invalidated the YES result. The 1997 Scots referendum had two questions. Abd it was prelegislative. The Good Friday agreement referendum in Northern Ireland would only have come into effect if it passed in the Republic as well which is a separate sovereign state. At a local level Mayoral referendums, both to create or abolish executive mayoralities, are binding. So do we really have a " longstanding convention " on these issues ?
Damn and blast, had a splendid reply to Mr. Submarine and it was lost to the ether!
You shall simply have to imagine the splendid historical rambling, and my comment on the EU probably collapsing during my lifetime with at least civil strife, and possible a small war.
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
Playing devil's advocate, in the absence of anything stating anything other than a simple majority was decisive, as a matter of longstanding convention simple majorities are the norm in Britain? I actually think for matters of sufficient important perhaps there should be thresholds, but in the absence of something specifying one I'd think there would be no need.
"Longstanding convention " Setting aside the fact referendums themselves aren't a long-standing convention in the UK, this was only the third UK level one we've had, the ones we've had have been varied. AV was binding, this one wasn't. The Welsh and Scottish referendums in 1979 were both post legislative AND had minimum turnout thresholds. Which in Scotland's case invalidated the YES result. The 1997 Scots referendum had two questions. Abd it was prelegislative. The Good Friday agreement referendum in Northern Ireland would only have come into effect if it passed in the Republic as well which is a separate sovereign state. At a local level Mayoral referendums, both to create or abolish executive mayoralities, are binding. So do we really have a " longstanding convention " on these issues ?
I did say I was playing devil's advocate - I'm interested to see we have had minimum turnout thresholds before. For major things I think they could be a good idea.
Government Lawyer getting bit more animated toward the end of the day.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
Judges didn't like his comments about how ordinary people view this process
Well it was a bit snide, and they did open the day saying they weren't focusing on the politics of Brexit, and the public view will definitely be that, since most of us are not constitutional lawyers. Whether parliament had in essence delegated the decision to the public through their actions was an argument making the same point less bluntly perhaps.
I think that Parliament delegated the decision to the public is how the man on the Clapham bus will see it
If the man on the Clapham omnibus is under 30, he's likely to be a remainer, and if he's over 30 he's a failure, by definition.
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
In politics, as in life in general, one side gets more votes than the other side, and unless there is a minimum turnout (or quorum), that's it. They've won. With a Yes or No answer, you can hardly have transferable votes. Or am I missing something?
Damn and blast, had a splendid reply to Mr. Submarine and it was lost to the ether!
You shall simply have to imagine the splendid historical rambling, and my comment on the EU probably collapsing during my lifetime with at least civil strife, and possible a small war.
Boy, Germany was a complicated mess for a long time, wasn't it?
It suited the pre-existing big powers to keep both Germany and Italy fragmented between city states (or small regional ones) for a very long time. Probably not a coincidence that when they finally got together, without any tradition of statehood they were the first two to succumb to fascism.
Government Lawyer getting bit more animated toward the end of the day.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
Judges didn't like his comments about how ordinary people view this process
Well it was a bit snide, and they did open the day saying they weren't focusing on the politics of Brexit, and the public view will definitely be that, since most of us are not constitutional lawyers. Whether parliament had in essence delegated the decision to the public through their actions was an argument making the same point less bluntly perhaps.
I think that Parliament delegated the decision to the public is how the man on the Clapham bus will see it
Surely t'other way around? The public delegates most decisions to Parliament but chose (by electing a Conservative government with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum) to keep this decision for themselves.
Damn and blast, had a splendid reply to Mr. Submarine and it was lost to the ether!
You shall simply have to imagine the splendid historical rambling, and my comment on the EU probably collapsing during my lifetime with at least civil strife, and possible a small war.
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
Is winning defined for elections to the Commons?
It's the part of the govt argument I don't agree with. The rest of their argument, some new to the Supreme Court, is much more persuasive.
Whoops ! < The Independent: Government response to report demanding immigrants improve English skills misspells 'integration' http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwuOmF5jA
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
I think the killer argument against that is that the referendum act didn't even define 'winning'. How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?
Playing devil's advocate, in the absence of anything stating anything other than a simple majority was decisive, as a matter of longstanding convention simple majorities are the norm in Britain? I actually think for matters of sufficient important perhaps there should be thresholds, but in the absence of something specifying one I'd think there would be no need.
"Longstanding convention " Setting aside the fact referendums themselves aren't a long-standing convention in the UK, this was only the third UK level one we've had, the ones we've had have been varied. AV was binding, this one wasn't. The Welsh and Scottish referendums in 1979 were both post legislative AND had minimum turnout thresholds. Which in Scotland's case invalidated the YES result. The 1997 Scots referendum had two questions. Abd it was prelegislative. The Good Friday agreement referendum in Northern Ireland would only have come into effect if it passed in the Republic as well which is a separate sovereign state. At a local level Mayoral referendums, both to create or abolish executive mayoralities, are binding. So do we really have a " longstanding convention " on these issues ?
I did say I was playing devil's advocate - I'm interested to see we have had minimum turnout thresholds before. For major things I think they could be a good idea.
On the old police authorities there was a double majority rule for precept rises. They had to be passed by a majority of all members and councillor members. The Northern Ireland Assembly has double majority rules when " community concern " is invoked. In the first instance there is a super majority needed for an early election under FTPA. Executive Mayors can pass there budgets unkess a *negative* supermajority is excised by Councillors.
Whoops ! < The Independent: Government response to report demanding immigrants improve English skills misspells 'integration' http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwuOmF5jA
Do they not have spellcheker?
I'm sure they do, but it is a fundamental force of nature on par with electromagnestism that if you are going to make such a statement, you will misspell something.
Sleaford by-election odds started at 1/33 for the Tories, and 16/1 for UKIP. Now 1/6 and 7/2. I reckon UKIP could snatch this seat amidst all the Brexit hysteria. It's May's worst nightmare - half the country want hard Brexit, the other want no Brexit at all. The Tories have to choose a side, otherwise they'll end up pissing everyone off. We either leave the EU, totally, or not at all. There is no third way with this.
Sleaford by-election odds started at 1/33 for the Tories, and 16/1 for UKIP. Now 1/6 and 7/2. I reckon UKIP could snatch this seat amidst all the Brexit hysteria. It's May's worst nightmare - half the country want hard Brexit, the other want no Brexit at all. The Tories have to choose a side, otherwise they'll end up pissing everyone off. We either leave the EU, totally, or not at all. There is no third way with this.
I think most people will settle for the middling option if it is presented.
I as hoping for some ridiculous LD odds for Sleaford, I'll be honest.
Sleaford by-election odds started at 1/33 for the Tories, and 16/1 for UKIP. Now 1/6 and 7/2. I reckon UKIP could snatch this seat amidst all the Brexit hysteria. It's May's worst nightmare - half the country want hard Brexit, the other want no Brexit at all. The Tories have to choose a side, otherwise they'll end up pissing everyone off. We either leave the EU, totally, or not at all. There is no third way with this.
Just had a coffee with an old LD friend who reckons that the best outcome in Sleaford is a UKIP win.
"Secondly, it is right to record that at the direction of the court, the registrar has asked all the parties involved in these proceedings whether they wish to ask any of the justices to stand down. All parties to the appeal have stated that they have no objection to any of us sitting on this appeal." (bottom of page 1, top of page 2)
Can we now hear no more about the question of whether any of the judges are inappropriately biased?
No. Why should what the parties think dictate what any private individual thinks?
Private individuals can think what they like. But it might be better - just a thought - if they based their opinions on some actual knowledge.
If the parties thought a judge was biased or had an actual or potential conflict of interest they would be under a duty to bring that to the court's attention. Indeed, the judges themselves should consider in any case whether there is any conflict and, therefore, whether they should recuse themselves. They should certainly be transparent to the parties.
The fact that this statement has been made should put paid to some of the wilder theories around about the basis for the Court's decision. Whatever the outcome the judgment will consist of legal reasoning, with which others may or may not agree, of course. But that does not mean - without some specific evidence to support this - that the judges will have come to that legal decision because of their personal preference in relation to the question of whether or not the UK should remain in the EU.
Interpretation of the law is something rather more subtle, intelligent and beautiful than the rather crude ad hominem caricature presented by some of our dimmer journalists.
Bias is, by its nature, unprovable. But it still exists. Many believe the BBC, an avowedly neutral organisation, to be biased. It's broadcasting staff is heavily skewed toward a left-leaning world view, which is reinforced by the nature of the taxpayer funded organisation. Left wing political outcomes favour BBC workers. You don't need a 'smoking gun' to see that bias may well exist.
I don't see why judges should be judged any differently.
Sleaford by-election odds started at 1/33 for the Tories, and 16/1 for UKIP. Now 1/6 and 7/2. I reckon UKIP could snatch this seat amidst all the Brexit hysteria. It's May's worst nightmare - half the country want hard Brexit, the other want no Brexit at all. The Tories have to choose a side, otherwise they'll end up pissing everyone off. We either leave the EU, totally, or not at all. There is no third way with this.
I think most people will settle for the middling option if it is presented.
I as hoping for some ridiculous LD odds for Sleaford, I'll be honest.
I absolutely think we'll get a true British fudge on the EU. And you know what? People understand. 10% on each side will care enough to argue. The 80% will get on with their lives.
Sleaford by-election odds started at 1/33 for the Tories, and 16/1 for UKIP. Now 1/6 and 7/2. I reckon UKIP could snatch this seat amidst all the Brexit hysteria. It's May's worst nightmare - half the country want hard Brexit, the other want no Brexit at all. The Tories have to choose a side, otherwise they'll end up pissing everyone off. We either leave the EU, totally, or not at all. There is no third way with this.
Just had a coffee with an old LD friend who reckons that the best outcome in Sleaford is a UKIP win.
Given UKIP can't even spell the name of the constituency, I'd say that's a long shot
Interesting. Jeremy Corbyn IS NOT a drag on the Labour Party. His net approval rating is better than that of the party. You will hear more about this, I am sure.
So apart from T May , no one has a positive net approval rating ? What's wrong with this country or its people ? Even May's will go negative pretty soon when the remnants of a short-lived honeymoon disappears.
Interesting. Jeremy Corbyn IS NOT a drag on the Labour Party. His net approval rating is better than that of the party. You will hear more about this, I am sure.
Interesting. Jeremy Corbyn IS NOT a drag on the Labour Party. His net approval rating is better than that of the party. You will hear more about this, I am sure.
Then there is the time scale issue. The Referendum Act sets no deadline for the government to invoke A50. Or a date when the mandate expires. What happens if May said " we accept the result but we need 5 years to prepare. So it'll be 2021. " She then loses the GE in 2020 but the subsequent Labour government won on note invoking - with 37% of the vote - so the UKIP government elected in 2025 invokes A50 using Prerogative to implement the referendum result. But is that fair after 9 years ?
Mayoral referendums and Border polls under the GFA are limited to once every seven years.
Does the absence of any of these checks and balances in the Referendum Act mean parliament didn't want them ? Or does other UK referendum legislation being littered with caveats show you can't assume a winner takes all ?
Sleaford by-election odds started at 1/33 for the Tories, and 16/1 for UKIP. Now 1/6 and 7/2. I reckon UKIP could snatch this seat amidst all the Brexit hysteria. It's May's worst nightmare - half the country want hard Brexit, the other want no Brexit at all. The Tories have to choose a side, otherwise they'll end up pissing everyone off. We either leave the EU, totally, or not at all. There is no third way with this.
I think most people will settle for the middling option if it is presented.
I as hoping for some ridiculous LD odds for Sleaford, I'll be honest.
I absolutely think we'll get a true British fudge on the EU. And you know what? People understand. 10% on each side will care enough to argue. The 80% will get on with their lives.
Whoops ! < The Independent: Government response to report demanding immigrants improve English skills misspells 'integration' http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwuOmF5jA
Do they not have spellcheker?
Hahah v good.
But to answer your question, they do have one, but George Osborne is finding his new down-sized role a challenge.
Interesting. Jeremy Corbyn IS NOT a drag on the Labour Party. His net approval rating is better than that of the party. You will hear more about this, I am sure.
Then there is the time scale issue. The Referendum Act sets no deadline for the government to invoke A50. Or a date when the mandate expires. What happens if May said " we accept the result but we need 5 years to prepare. So it'll be 2021.
No doubt one reason she set an arbitrary date of March next year. God knows how much time would in theory be enough - maybe if we were required to trigger in 4 months we'd have been able to manage it - but setting a date herself ties her political fortunes to it, ensuring it will happen.
Then there is the time scale issue. The Referendum Act sets no deadline for the government to invoke A50. Or a date when the mandate expires. What happens if May said " we accept the result but we need 5 years to prepare. So it'll be 2021. " She then loses the GE in 2020 but the subsequent Labour government won on note invoking - with 37% of the vote - so the UKIP government elected in 2025 invokes A50 using Prerogative to implement the referendum result. But is that fair after 9 years ?
Mayoral referendums and Border polls under the GFA are limited to once every seven years.
Does the absence of any of these checks and balances in the Referendum Act mean parliament didn't want them ? Or does other UK referendum legislation being littered with caveats show you can't assume a winner takes all ?
My guess is that it means Mr Cameron & everyone who drafted the Referendum Act hadn't the slightest doubt they'd win a Remain vote. If they didn't think it worth while doing any just-in-case Leave preparation, they certainly wouldn't waste effort on adding bits of legislation that would never be needed.
Sleaford by-election odds started at 1/33 for the Tories, and 16/1 for UKIP. Now 1/6 and 7/2. I reckon UKIP could snatch this seat amidst all the Brexit hysteria. It's May's worst nightmare - half the country want hard Brexit, the other want no Brexit at all. The Tories have to choose a side, otherwise they'll end up pissing everyone off. We either leave the EU, totally, or not at all. There is no third way with this.
Just had a coffee with an old LD friend who reckons that the best outcome in Sleaford is a UKIP win.
It would probably mean an early election in May 2017 at which the LDs would be favourites to gain seats like Cambridge, Bath, Edinburgh West, Cheltenham, etc. So I can understand his/her reasoning.
That's possible, or it could have been deliberate laziness (both with the advisory/binding aspect of the referendum and regarding the lack of any preparatory work) to bugger things up if things went ill. After all, Cameron isn't clearing up any of the mess.
Sarah Olney took her seat this afternoon. Was led in by Tim Farron and Alistair Carmichael. Interesting that Caroline Lucas gave her a smile just before she was introduced.
"Secondly, it is right to record that at the direction of the court, the registrar has asked all the parties involved in these proceedings whether they wish to ask any of the justices to stand down. All parties to the appeal have stated that they have no objection to any of us sitting on this appeal." (bottom of page 1, top of page 2)
Can we now hear no more about the question of whether any of the judges are inappropriately biased?
No. Why should what the parties think dictate what any private individual thinks?
Interpretation of the law is something rather more subtle, intelligent and beautiful than the rather crude ad hominem caricature presented by some of our dimmer journalists.
Bias is, by its nature, unprovable. But it still exists. Many believe the BBC, an avowedly neutral organisation, to be biased. It's broadcasting staff is heavily skewed toward a left-leaning world view, which is reinforced by the nature of the taxpayer funded organisation. Left wing political outcomes favour BBC workers. You don't need a 'smoking gun' to see that bias may well exist.
I don't see why judges should be judged any differently.
You genuinely think bias is unprovable? That seems silly... I mean if you got a Man United fan from the crowd at Old Trafford to referee, and he sent the whole Liverpool team off, and said yes I did it because I hate Liverpool... that would be pretty compelling proof wouldn't it?
I actually have a lot of sympathy to the idea that we should be sceptical of judges' claims that they are able to remain impartial.
It's interesting that the idea that law = politics originally stemmed (partly) out of the work of Marxist scholars in the Critical Legal Studies movement.... hardly the natural bedfellows of those using their arguments today!
Sleaford by-election odds started at 1/33 for the Tories, and 16/1 for UKIP. Now 1/6 and 7/2. I reckon UKIP could snatch this seat amidst all the Brexit hysteria. It's May's worst nightmare - half the country want hard Brexit, the other want no Brexit at all. The Tories have to choose a side, otherwise they'll end up pissing everyone off. We either leave the EU, totally, or not at all. There is no third way with this.
UKIP have no chance of winning in Sleaford , Their campaign has no money , few activists on the ground and an awful candidate . You can get 10-1 on Betfair if you think differently
She then loses the GE in 2020 but the subsequent Labour government won on note invoking - with 37% of the vote - so the UKIP government elected in 2025 invokes A50 using Prerogative to implement the referendum result. But is that fair after 9 years ?
I've wondered about this, my view is, damn right it would be fair. I have no problem whatsoever with the Lib Dems and whoever else continuing to advocate membership of the EU. But we have voted to leave the EU and leave we shall. Now, if the Lib Dems win a general election they are more than welcome to have a referendum on joining the EU. In fact, if they put it in their manifesto, they can take us back in without a referendum.
If, however, there is a change of government before we leave, then I'm afraid the 2016 referendum is valid until Leave win a GE.
"Secondly, it is right to record that at the direction of the court, the registrar has asked all the parties involved in these proceedings whether they wish to ask any of the justices to stand down. All parties to the appeal have stated that they have no objection to any of us sitting on this appeal." (bottom of page 1, top of page 2)
Can we now hear no more about the question of whether any of the judges are inappropriately biased?
No. Why should what the parties think dictate what any private individual thinks?
Interpretation of the law is something rather more subtle, intelligent and beautiful than the rather crude ad hominem caricature presented by some of our dimmer journalists.
Bias is, by its nature, unprovable. But it still exists. Many believe the BBC, an avowedly neutral organisation, to be biased. It's broadcasting staff is heavily skewed toward a left-leaning world view, which is reinforced by the nature of the taxpayer funded organisation. Left wing political outcomes favour BBC workers. You don't need a 'smoking gun' to see that bias may well exist.
I don't see why judges should be judged any differently.
You genuinely think bias is unprovable? That seems silly... I mean if you got a Man United fan from the crowd at Old Trafford to referee, and he sent the whole Liverpool team off, and said yes I did it because I hate Liverpool... that would be pretty compelling proof wouldn't it?
I actually have a lot of sympathy to the idea that we should be sceptical of judges' claims that they are able to remain impartial.
It's interesting that the idea that law = politics originally stemmed (partly) out of the work of Marxist scholars in the Critical Legal Studies movement.... hardly the natural bedfellows of those using their arguments today!
Bias is a mindset. Of course if someone offers a documented confession of their own bias that would be proof. Other than that, your Liverpool fan could deny bias, and you could accuse him of it to high heavens but it would still be a 'conspiracy theory'.
Whoops ! < The Independent: Government response to report demanding immigrants improve English skills misspells 'integration' http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwuOmF5jA
Do they not have spellcheker?
Hahah v good.
But to answer your question, they do have one, but George Osborne is finding his new down-sized role a challenge.
While at the FCO, I was responsible for shepherding through the UK's report on what it had done re ending discrimination against women. The front page of the report came back from the printers with 'Descrimination'. Had to send back all 2000 copies - couldn't have everyone saying 'The FCO doesn't even know how to SPELL discrimination, let alone ..."
Whoops ! < The Independent: Government response to report demanding immigrants improve English skills misspells 'integration' http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwuOmF5jA
Do they not have spellcheker?
Hahah v good.
But to answer your question, they do have one, but George Osborne is finding his new down-sized role a challenge.
While at the FCO, I was responsible for shepherding through the UK's report on what it had done re ending discrimination against women. The front page of the report came back from the printers with 'Descrimination'. Had to send back all 2000 copies - couldn't have everyone saying 'The FCO doesn't even know how to SPELL discrimination, let alone ..."
You could have told everyone that the 'i' was too subliminally phallic, whereas the 'e' was a pleasingly ovular nurturing replacement. Extra points.
The Referendum Act also made no provision for a tie. And there was no provision for regional or national recounts. Press reports at the time state this didn't matter as it was a pre legislative/advisory referendum.
@AnneJGP I agree completely. Cameron thought losing was impossible so we got the constitutional equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Nor was it the House of Lords' finest hour. How did all these ambiguities get passed a revising chamber ? The only reason the Supreme Court is involved imho is because Parliament passed a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast of an Act.
Bias is a mindset. Of course if someone offers a documented confession of their own bias that would be proof. Other than that, your Liverpool fan could deny bias, and you could accuse him of it to high heavens but it would still be a 'conspiracy theory'.
Systemic bias is observable and measurable for actions repeated many times, as opposed to a one-off decisions (and there I think you are right - for a one-off decision, it is impossible to prove bias).
For example, if over the course of a game, all the referring errors are in favour for one team, and disadvantage the other, and this pattern recurs each time that referee refs a game between those teams, I think that would serve as 'proof' of bias for all but the tin foilers.
The Referendum Act also made no provision for a tie. And there was no provision for regional or national recounts. Press reports at the time state this didn't matter as it was a pre legislative/advisory referendum.
@AnneJGP I agree completely. Cameron thought losing was impossible so we got the constitutional equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Nor was it the House of Lords' finest hour. How did all these ambiguities get passed a revising chamber ? The only reason the Supreme Court is involved imho is because Parliament passed a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast of an Act.
The cynic in me says this was Remain's insurance policy.
The Referendum Act also made no provision for a tie. And there was no provision for regional or national recounts. Press reports at the time state this didn't matter as it was a pre legislative/advisory referendum.
Do they have to, surely guidance on recounts from the electoral commission is sufficient in such matters? As for ties, are these even legislated for in general, or again, is it an electoral commission matter?
Comments
Of course "Number of times I've gotten to make a decision twice to know for sure how it would have turned out" is 0
Mercedes should just pick a driver.
However, away from the Courts there does seem to be a growing attempt to delay and frustrate A50 by labour and the lib dems. Labour are intent on putting in amendments to the A50 process that will make it impossible for the government to negotiate a deal.
This morning Diane Abbott absolutely declared that labour want access to the single market and no restriction on free movement of labour. She just doesn't understand how toxic this is for labour but then how can anyone understand Dianne Abbott unless you move in the London left elite circle of out of touch MP's
I would expect that these attempts to frustrate the process will spark a backlash from not only leavers but many remainers, like myself, who accepted the result and expect the government to serve A50 asap and just get on with it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/05/the-wisconsin-recount-may-have-a-surprise-in-store-after-all/?utm_term=.959f9eb1ff30
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind/transcript?language=en
If it looks like the government will go for Norway +, aka Cameron -, will Brexiteers be justified in trying to prevent it?
The Brexit war was won. The Brexit Peace has been ongoing for months and still is. So Hard Brexiters are justified in trying to prevent Soft Brext, and Soft Brexiters are justified trying to prevent Hard Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/05/soviet-union-collapsed-overnight-western-democracy-liberal-order-ussr-russia?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/805806029481066496
"It’s 25 years since I was last in Russia, trying and failing to revive the left during the chaotic first days of Boris Yeltsin’s economic reforms."
@BBCDomC That last govt argument - Parliament would surely not expect a vote on something it's referred to the people - is the simplest put so far
Has appeal, though I'd have thought that depended on what happened in other referendums, as it would mean all referendums are binding? So if other referendum acts included specific provision to bring the public vote into force, and the 2015 act did not, then surely it was established you need to specify?
This is the problem as a layman - I could easily accept either side's arguments immediately after hearing them.
"How was anyone to infer for a fact that a simple majority would be decisive?"
How about common sense? It's unlikely to be a minority.
No gavel either. Disgraceful.
You shall simply have to imagine the splendid historical rambling, and my comment on the EU probably collapsing during my lifetime with at least civil strife, and possible a small war.
I wrote this a while ago, but it is relevant:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/how-long-can-state-survive.html
They delegated the decision, which has been made, and is not disputed by the courts.
They did not delegate the means or the authority to enact the decision, which they could have done, but didn't.
The government case appears to be now that they did, because they did not explicitly say that they didn't, which they could have done, but didn't...
Edit: I'm just teasing. In practice we accept the public are where authority comes from, but when it comes to the technical details of how parliament's power is directed and delegated, that is left to parliament and the courts I'd have thought, as it is too arcane for people to follow otherwise.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602799/Amazing-time-lapse-video-shows-constantly-changing-borders-Europe-past-1-000-years-shaped-continent-know-today.html
And why are they interviewing the ex-leader?
Where is Paul Nuttals of the UKIPs?
I'll get me coat.
Do they not have spellcheker?
I as hoping for some ridiculous LD odds for Sleaford, I'll be honest.
I don't see why judges should be judged any differently.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ncuxzlahef/InternalResults_161130_FavourabilityFigures_W.pdf …
Mayoral referendums and Border polls under the GFA are limited to once every seven years.
Does the absence of any of these checks and balances in the Referendum Act mean parliament didn't want them ? Or does other UK referendum legislation being littered with caveats show you can't assume a winner takes all ?
But to answer your question, they do have one, but George Osborne is finding his new down-sized role a challenge.
Not for me though, more likely to lose deposit.
(Good evening, everyone)
That's possible, or it could have been deliberate laziness (both with the advisory/binding aspect of the referendum and regarding the lack of any preparatory work) to bugger things up if things went ill. After all, Cameron isn't clearing up any of the mess.
I actually have a lot of sympathy to the idea that we should be sceptical of judges' claims that they are able to remain impartial.
It's interesting that the idea that law = politics originally stemmed (partly) out of the work of Marxist scholars in the Critical Legal Studies movement.... hardly the natural bedfellows of those using their arguments today!
You can get 10-1 on Betfair if you think differently
If, however, there is a change of government before we leave, then I'm afraid the 2016 referendum is valid until Leave win a GE.
You knew a lot about Richmond Park thanks to proximity to the media centres, but has anyone bothered to report from rural lincolshire ?
@AnneJGP I agree completely. Cameron thought losing was impossible so we got the constitutional equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Nor was it the House of Lords' finest hour. How did all these ambiguities get passed a revising chamber ? The only reason the Supreme Court is involved imho is because Parliament passed a Dangerous Dogs Breakfast of an Act.
For example, if over the course of a game, all the referring errors are in favour for one team, and disadvantage the other, and this pattern recurs each time that referee refs a game between those teams, I think that would serve as 'proof' of bias for all but the tin foilers.