politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s local by-election

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s local by-election

Carnoustie and District (SNP defence) on Angus Result of council at last election (2012): Scottish National Party 15, Independents 8, Conservatives 4, Labour 1, Liberal Democrat 1 (Scottish National Party majority of 1) Result of ward at last election (2012): Emboldened denotes elected Independents 483, 1,750 (51%) Scottish National Party 582, 1,029 (36%) Labour 274 (6%) Conservatives 271 (6%) Liberal Democrat 41 (1%) EU Referendum Result: REMAIN 32,747 (55%) LEAVE 26,511 (45%) on a turnout of 68% Candidates duly nominated: David Cheap (Ind), Mark McDonald (SNP), Beth Morrison (Lib Dem), Derek Shaw (Con), Ray Strachen (Lab)

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

A by election on Monday?

What madness is this?

kle4

LD surge, nailed on. Double, perhaps triple their vote.

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

LD surge, nailed on. Double, perhaps triple their vote.

This is Scotland, Con gain nailed on!

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

A by election on Monday?

What madness is this?

Absolute nutters up there

SandyRentool

As it is a Scottish by-election, shouldn't the accompanying photo say "Polling Place"?

MarkSenior

Not counting till 10 am tomorrow

kle4

williamglenn said:

welshowl said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Dixie said:

Scott_P said:

I see some PBers are still hoping for a softish Brexit. Unlucky...

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/805827909298651136

who cares.

All successful countries in the world are outside EU except Germany and UK(just). It's all bollox.

Let the tariffs go up. They will suffer more than us. All the malarkey is typical EU and why we must leave.

The top ten richest countries on a ppp pet capita basis include two EU states, two efta states, five natural resource rich countries, and one city state.

It does not include the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea or Taiwan.

It really should be the duty of all thinking people to play their part in helping our country reconcile itself to our European reality and destiny so that we can move on and start focusing on the real issues.

Seriously?? Like seriously?

The best comedy is based in truth.

And besides, look where the fatalistic grumbling about how we're not happy bedfellows has got us? Months or years of navel gazing about how to move to a position just one iota more detached from the EU so that we can save face over Brexit.

It is far from certain that we will end up in a position one iota more detached from the EU. Judging from the conversation I've just has with a lifelong non-voter who voted Leave (albeit for far different reasons than me), and the fear that the courts and parliament will take it away given the chance, I think it might be easier to convince many people than many options perhaps quite removed from the EU are no different than being in it, or one iota out of it, and that will pressure the government.

SandyRentool said:

As it is a Scottish by-election, shouldn't the accompanying photo say "Polling Place"?

Is that how they do it up there? My words, we really are very different from one another.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

LD surge, nailed on. Double, perhaps triple their vote.

This is Scotland, Con gain nailed on!

You guys had your surge into glorious distant second nationally, its someone elses' turn.

AnneJGP

For a minute there I thought it was Thursday already .....

SandyRentool

AnneJGP said:

For a minute there I thought it was Thursday already .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOqdVKggSVE

tlg86

AnneJGP said:

For a minute there I thought it was Thursday already .....

It got my hopes up too. Then I remembered I have four more days of work to go...

williamglenn

kle4 said:

Judging from the conversation I've just has with a lifelong non-voter who voted Leave (albeit for far different reasons than me), and the fear that the courts and parliament will take it away given the chance, I think it might be easier to convince many people than many options perhaps quite removed from the EU are no different than being in it, or one iota out of it, and that will pressure the government.

It's quite possible that simply remaining on the present terms will turn out to be the path of least resistance, even in terms of domestic politics.

kle4

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

Judging from the conversation I've just has with a lifelong non-voter who voted Leave (albeit for far different reasons than me), and the fear that the courts and parliament will take it away given the chance, I think it might be easier to convince many people than many options perhaps quite removed from the EU are no different than being in it, or one iota out of it, and that will pressure the government.

It's quite possible that simply remaining on the present terms will turn out to be the path of least resistance, even in terms of domestic politics.

At present, I find that extremely difficult to believe. We'll see in 2-3 years I guess.

kle4

Pretty low remain score for Scotland isn't that?

tpfkar

So parliamentary by-elections on consecutive weeks, and a cheeky Monday by-election to give us junkies our fix to get us through till Thursday. Major withdrawal symptoms this time next week....

AnneJGP

SandyRentool said:

AnneJGP said:

For a minute there I thought it was Thursday already .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOqdVKggSVE

Pop music is like Shakespeare - a quotation for all occasions.

Dromedary

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

chestnut

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

Judging from the conversation I've just has with a lifelong non-voter who voted Leave (albeit for far different reasons than me), and the fear that the courts and parliament will take it away given the chance, I think it might be easier to convince many people than many options perhaps quite removed from the EU are no different than being in it, or one iota out of it, and that will pressure the government.

It's quite possible that simply remaining on the present terms will turn out to be the path of least resistance, even in terms of domestic politics.

You don't appear to understand the broad mass of leavers.

AnneJGP

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I've thought all along that our Referendum vote to Leave might be subject to some sort of ruling from the ECJ.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

kle4

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

Both claimants and the government accepted in the High Court that A50 was irrevocable, so I would not think they would bother to argue that point again? They also stated the intention of the referendum to be enacted without delay etc was well stated, so even if the act did not say so, government has the power to enact the result even if the prerogative did not already apply (iirc).

But given there are avenues in hand should the appeal lose, which presumably could have been used regardless, it does seem a delaying situation, although perhaps they do think they will succeed, which would be useful (enough legal arguments in the government's favour were made after the high court decision I presume it cannot be without merit)

Freggles

FPT

AnneJGP said:

Freggles said:

The ballot paper said nothing about the Single Market.

Either you only go with what is on the ballot paper, and there is no mandate to leave the Single Market, only the EU -OR you accept that the Brexit mandate was also for the promise of £350m a week for the NHS, no tariffs on goods and services and everything else LEAVE promised. You can't pick and choose the bits of the campaign you like and ignore the rest

IANAL, but it would seem fairly reasonable to me to take into account what official government publications state, whilst not giving the same weight to ad-hoc groups' publications.

Not that I think they will take even official government publications into account. That seems outside their remit, if I've understood correctly.

The official government leaflet, does NOT say we would have to leave the Single Market, in fact it says that we would have to pay in and accept freedom of movement to retain free access to it. So the leaflet is quite clear that in the event of leaving there would be several different possible scenarios, but argues that they are all inferior to membership of the EU.

Therefore the government position was not that Brexit meant Hard Brexit.

Again: can't pick and choose which bits of the Vote Leave prospectus you want to endorse, it's all or nothing

EDIT: For clarity, I'm not talking about the court case, rather the argument some are making that the only Brexit with a mandate is a hard Brexit

Toms

AnneJGP said:

SandyRentool said:

AnneJGP said:

For a minute there I thought it was Thursday already .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOqdVKggSVE

Pop music is like Shakespeare - a quotation for all occasions.

I don't bother with old Shakeshaft. Too hackneyed.

kle4

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

PeterC

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

Judging from the conversation I've just has with a lifelong non-voter who voted Leave (albeit for far different reasons than me), and the fear that the courts and parliament will take it away given the chance, I think it might be easier to convince many people than many options perhaps quite removed from the EU are no different than being in it, or one iota out of it, and that will pressure the government.

It's quite possible that simply remaining on the present terms will turn out to be the path of least resistance, even in terms of domestic politics.

At present, I find that extremely difficult to believe. We'll see in 2-3 years I guess.

I agree. REMAIN is practically impossible. The Tories couldn't deliver it because they are ideologically riven by Europe; Labour couldn't because Corbyn & Co don't want to and their heartlands would be decimated by UKIP if they tried.

AnneJGP

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

Well, this is the EU we are dealing with, so a statement on irrevocability that is clear to all sides could, without warning, turn into something quite different if the EU wishes to interpret it so.

Be rather amusing, that.

RobD

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I've thought all along that our Referendum vote to Leave might be subject to some sort of ruling from the ECJ.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

If Parliament legislates for the government to use Article 50, don't all appeals become moot?

PeterC

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

Revocation is the elephant in the room; I do not see how one could sensibly proceed with the drastic action of tabling A50 without knowing whether their was an escape clause. In the worst circumstances A50 leads to a cliff edge.

FF43

kle4 said:

Pretty low remain score for Scotland isn't that?

Carnoustie is a golf place. Somehow you expect more Leavers.

RobD

PeterC said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

Revocation is the elephant in the room; I do not see how one could sensibly proceed with the drastic action of tabling A50 without knowing whether their was an escape clause. In the worst circumstances A50 leads to a cliff edge.

Both sides agreed that it wasn't revokable. Permanently delayable by unanimity, maybe.

AnneJGP

RobD said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I've thought all along that our Referendum vote to Leave might be subject to some sort of ruling from the ECJ.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

If Parliament legislates for the government to use Article 50, don't all appeals become moot?

Legislation is open to Judicial Review, isn't it? Open to be corrected.

Dromedary

kle4 said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

Both claimants and the government accepted in the High Court that A50 was irrevocable, so I would not think they would bother to argue that point again? They also stated the intention of the referendum to be enacted without delay etc was well stated, so even if the act did not say so, government has the power to enact the result even if the prerogative did not already apply (iirc).

A parliamentary act shouldn't be interpreted on the basis of what the government says to the media, or even by what they say to parliament if parliament doesn't write it in the act. The government have only themselves to blame for not proposing in the bill that the referendum would be binding, as the Scottish independence one was.

williamglenn

RobD said:

PeterC said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

Revocation is the elephant in the room; I do not see how one could sensibly proceed with the drastic action of tabling A50 without knowing whether their was an escape clause. In the worst circumstances A50 leads to a cliff edge.

Both sides agreed that it wasn't revokable. Permanently delayable by unanimity, maybe.

Both sides didn't want to open that Pandora's box (yet) for their own reasons. That doesn't have any baring on whether it is revocable in reality or not.

PeterC

RobD said:

PeterC said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

Revocation is the elephant in the room; I do not see how one could sensibly proceed with the drastic action of tabling A50 without knowing whether their was an escape clause. In the worst circumstances A50 leads to a cliff edge.

Both sides agreed that it wasn't revokable. Permanently delayable by unanimity, maybe.

Neither the domestic parties nor the SC are qualified to rule on revocation. Surely it must be down to the ECJ to say what the treaty really means.

RobD

PeterC said:

RobD said:

PeterC said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

Revocation is the elephant in the room; I do not see how one could sensibly proceed with the drastic action of tabling A50 without knowing whether their was an escape clause. In the worst circumstances A50 leads to a cliff edge.

Both sides agreed that it wasn't revokable. Permanently delayable by unanimity, maybe.

The neither the domestic parties nor the SC are qualified to rule on revocation. Surely it must be down to the ECJ to say what the treatiy really means.

Yes, but I suspect the government would move forward on a bill rather than wait months for an ECJ verdict.

nunu

Donald J. Trump – Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump

With Ben Carson wanting to hit his mother on head with a hammer, stab a friend and Pyramids built for grain storage - don't people get it?

kle4

Dromedary said:

kle4 said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

Both claimants and the government accepted in the High Court that A50 was irrevocable, so I would not think they would bother to argue that point again? They also stated the intention of the referendum to be enacted without delay etc was well stated, so even if the act did not say so, government has the power to enact the result even if the prerogative did not already apply (iirc).

A parliamentary act shouldn't be interpreted on the basis of what the government says to the media, or even by what they say to parliament if parliament doesn't write it in the act. The government have only themselves to blame for not proposing in the bill that the referendum would be binding, as the Scottish independence one was.

Oh I agree, government statements, even government guidance, is not law, and if they specified in past acts, they should have hear, but that was one of the arguments made, essentially saying all referendums should be binding, as parliament would ask the people to decide an issue if it intended to leave itself the formal deciding later, or words to that effect. That was the simpler of the various arguments made, the others were much too technical for me to follow.

kle4

PeterC said:

RobD said:

PeterC said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

Revocation is the elephant in the room; I do not see how one could sensibly proceed with the drastic action of tabling A50 without knowing whether their was an escape clause. In the worst circumstances A50 leads to a cliff edge.

Both sides agreed that it wasn't revokable. Permanently delayable by unanimity, maybe.

Neither the domestic parties nor the SC are qualified to rule on revocation. Surely it must be down to the ECJ to say what the treaty really means.

On that specific point? Probably. That may be why neither side contested it, as it may not be in the interests of either to say 'let's take this to the ECJ' right now.

FF43

PeterC said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

A major headache that would be, though funny in its way.

I worry about the irrevocability point, as it has been one point the sides agreed on so at least one thing that does not need to be picked over, but of course some are of the view it could be withdrawn.

Revocation is the elephant in the room; I do not see how one could sensibly proceed with the drastic action of tabling A50 without knowing whether their was an escape clause. In the worst circumstances A50 leads to a cliff edge.

What's sense got to do with it? We wouldn't have proceeded with the Referendum if we had been sensible. My guess is that Theresa May doesn't actually mind if we go over the cliff as long as the Brexit crowd are cheering us on. The decision is taken out of her hands and it's final. What she doesn't want is debate about soft and hard Brexit and then being told, Theresa, you decide....

williamglenn

Farage has been out campaigning for the National Front candidate in Sleaford.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/805806786385248256

Speedy

SandyRentool said:

AnneJGP said:

For a minute there I thought it was Thursday already .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOqdVKggSVE

I remember there was an 80's pop single about motorways or driving on A roads or something.

Monksfield

williamglenn said:

Farage has been out campaigning for the National Front candidate in Sleaford.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/805806786385248256

Ever the eminence gris

chestnut

Reading all the remainers on here wishing away the result is just like reading all the post 2010 left wing posts that believed that the voters didn't really mean it, and that they would all back away from 'austerity' because Ed Miliband was 'cutting through'.

Speedy

AnneJGP said:

RobD said:

AnneJGP said:

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I've thought all along that our Referendum vote to Leave might be subject to some sort of ruling from the ECJ.

I half-expected the ECJ to be asked to rule on whether the Leave arrangements had lawfully been made "in accordance with the UK's constitution".

If Parliament legislates for the government to use Article 50, don't all appeals become moot?

Legislation is open to Judicial Review, isn't it? Open to be corrected.

Parliament could also vote for a law regulating Judicial Review if necessary.

Parliament makes the law, the last person to reject that notion was Charles I.

Sunil_Prasannan

By-election on a MONDAY?????

Speedy

Sunil_Prasannan said:

By-election on a MONDAY?????

I actually support having elections on Sundays rather than working days, Saturday is out of the question since Jews are prohibited for religious reasons in doing anything on Saturdays.

Pulpstar

Dromedary said:

I haven't read the court transcript, but BBC radio was reporting that the government's argument is as follows:

1) the European Communities Act 1972 didn't say explicitly that it created prerogative powers to negate itself, but it created them by implication, because invoking A50 is essentially no different from signing the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties

2) had Parliament not meant to acknowledge or grant the government's right to invoke A50, they would have written "you're not allowed to do it without our say-so, okay?" into the EU Referendum Act 2015

The BBC also stated that

3) so far the issue of whether or not an A50 invocation can be withdrawn isn't before the court, but if the judges decide to seek clarification on it they'll have to ask the EU court in Luxembourg...

4) ... and if they do that, then the pitchforkers won't like it one bit and may get right narky.

The government's case is a complete joke. Clearly they are deliberately delaying. It may well be that the judges will do their own bit towards the same aim.

This is the biggest public-relations court case since Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accused Dan Brown of plagiarism and the judge wrote a coded message based on the Fibonacci sequence into his verdict.

How long will it before the pitchfork press declares that it's the Tory government who are the enemies of the people? And they won't follow up by urging a vote for Labour or the LibDems.

I wish Betfair would create a market on who will get the most votes in the next general election. The UKIP price might look tasty.

I think UKIP probably get most seats if they win the most votes in the next GE, although the referendum was narrowly won by leave - I think leave won 420ish seats, or thereabouts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-brexit-parties-would-win-150-fewer-seats-than-pro-leave-par/

The corollary is that UKIP Most seats makes sense as a proxy for most votes.

@Tissue_Price Tipped this one up when it was 500-1 with Paddy Power, I'm on for £1.50 (Max stake)

tlg86

Speedy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

By-election on a MONDAY?????

I actually support having elections on Sundays rather than working days, Saturday is out of the question since Jews are prohibited for religious reasons in doing anything on Saturdays.

I can imagine that Sunday voting wouldn't go down well in Ulster!

williamglenn

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-tech-idUSKBN13U2L2

London could lose its position as the leading destination for start-ups in Europe if it does not remain open to the best talent after the British vote to leave the European Union, investors warned on Monday.

Six months after the referendum, tech investors used the TechCrunch Disrupt London conference, a major annual gathering for hot start-ups, to call on the government to answer many lingering questions around immigration policy.

Theuniondivvie

Fresh from his insights into Austrian society and politics, Arron Banks has now ventured into classical history.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/805837627589066752

Quite the Renaissance man.

chestnut

williamglenn said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-tech-idUSKBN13U2L2

London could lose its position as the leading destination for start-ups in Europe if it does not remain open to the best talent after the British vote to leave the European Union, investors warned on Monday.

Six months after the referendum, tech investors used the TechCrunch Disrupt London conference, a major annual gathering for hot start-ups, to call on the government to answer many lingering questions around immigration policy.

Super-whizzo tech kids from all over the world (Leave) or Romanian big issue sellers (Remain).

Tough call, isn't it?

AnneJGP

Speedy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

By-election on a MONDAY?????

I actually support having elections on Sundays rather than working days, Saturday is out of the question since Jews are prohibited for religious reasons in doing anything on Saturdays.

Wouldn't that make it more expensive? Higher rates for Sunday working, for one thing? Those who need taxis would have to pay higher rates.

PClipp

tlg86 said:

Speedy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

By-election on a MONDAY?????

I actually support having elections on Sundays rather than working days, Saturday is out of the question since Jews are prohibited for religious reasons in doing anything on Saturdays.

I can imagine that Sunday voting wouldn't go down well in Ulster!

They can always vote by post!

Pulpstar

UKIP at 18.5/44 for most seats.

Way too short I think.

Richard_Nabavi

Pulpstar said:

UKIP at 18.5/44 for most seats.

Way too short I think.

LOL, that's putting it mildly!

Sunil_Prasannan

Theuniondivvie said:

Fresh from his insights into Austrian society and politics, Arron Banks has now ventured into classical history.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/805837627589066752

Quite the Renaissance man.

Wasn't Vienna built on the site of Vindabona of "Gladiator" fame?

Sunil_Prasannan

williamglenn said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-tech-idUSKBN13U2L2

London could lose its position as the leading destination for start-ups in Europe if it does not remain open to the best talent after the British vote to leave the European Union, investors warned on Monday.

Six months after the referendum, tech investors used the TechCrunch Disrupt London conference, a major annual gathering for hot start-ups, to call on the government to answer many lingering questions around immigration policy.

Could? Not "will"?

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

UKIP at 18.5/44 for most seats.

Way too short I think.

LOL, that's putting it mildly!

More like a 200-1 shot maybe ?

I'd happily lay the 44 but for the time value of money.

TheScreamingEagles

Arron Banks = Morris Dancer

Mary Beard = Me

Pulpstar

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fresh from his insights into Austrian society and politics, Arron Banks has now ventured into classical history.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/805837627589066752

Quite the Renaissance man.

Wasn't Vienna built on the site of Vindabona of "Gladiator" fame?

Wasn't that Jet, Saracen & Flame ?

Sunil_Prasannan

Pulpstar said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fresh from his insights into Austrian society and politics, Arron Banks has now ventured into classical history.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/805837627589066752

Quite the Renaissance man.

Wasn't Vienna built on the site of Vindabona of "Gladiator" fame?

Wasn't that Jet, Saracen & Flame ?

No, Gladiator with Russel Crowe and Oliver Reed

Sunil_Prasannan

tlg86 said:

Speedy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

By-election on a MONDAY?????

I actually support having elections on Sundays rather than working days, Saturday is out of the question since Jews are prohibited for religious reasons in doing anything on Saturdays.

I can imagine that Sunday voting wouldn't go down well in Ulster!

Or the Western Isles?

Gardenwalker

TheScreamingEagles said:

Arron Banks = Morris Dancer

Mary Beard = Me

Aaron Banks is just Nick Griffin with money and better eyesight.

kle4

Avillage pub made famous by the visit of China's President Xi Jinping and then Prime Minister David Cameron has been bought by a major Chinese firm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-38212539

No doubt so our PMs can nip out to the pub to receive marching orders from Beijing!

Sunil_Prasannan

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Arron Banks = Morris Dancer

Mary Beard = Me

Aaron Banks is just Nick Griffin with money and better eyesight.

Nick Griffin went to Cambridge...

Pulpstar

kle4 said:

Avillage pub made famous by the visit of China's President Xi Jinping and then Prime Minister David Cameron has been bought by a major Chinese firm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-38212539

No doubt so our PMs can nip out to the pub to receive marching orders from Beijing!

The chinese are great

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36880778

Sunil_Prasannan

kle4 said:

Avillage pub made famous by the visit of China's President Xi Jinping and then Prime Minister David Cameron has been bought by a major Chinese firm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-38212539

No doubt so our PMs can nip out to the pub to receive marching orders from Beijing!

The Red (Chinese) Dragon

Dixie

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-tech-idUSKBN13U2L2

London could lose its position as the leading destination for start-ups in Europe if it does not remain open to the best talent after the British vote to leave the European Union, investors warned on Monday.

Six months after the referendum, tech investors used the TechCrunch Disrupt London conference, a major annual gathering for hot start-ups, to call on the government to answer many lingering questions around immigration policy.

Could? Not "will"?

Apparently when London was the powerful city in the world, we weren't in the EU. Life didn't begin in the 70s, with only Neanderthals and troglodytes roaming Londonium.

Sunil_Prasannan

NEW THREAD - apparently!

Scott_P

chestnut said:

Reading all the remainers on here wishing away the result

Link?

TheScreamingEagles

NEW THREAD