It's only the beginning of December, so surely a bit early to be deciding the event of the year ?
Anyone tempted by the odds on England winning the next test ? Seem pretty generous given two fairly closely matched teams, and Root seems overdue a big score. Or am I an incurable optimist ?
It's only the beginning of December, so surely a bit early to be deciding the event of the year ?
Anyone tempted by the odds on England winning the next test ? Seem pretty generous given two fairly closely matched teams, and Root seems overdue a big score. Or am I an incurable optimist ?
Surely given it's 2016, ten minutes before the end of the year would be too soon...
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Why would insulating a sector of the economy from foreign competition make it better?
The point presumably is that there is no competition. An analogous argument that @MaxPB was making about Openreach.
Re Openreach -- note that in America, it looks like ISPs will be allowed not only to supply their own content (which is why BT must be broken up) but also to favour it. Republicans are threatening to reverse any timid FCC moves (none so far) once Trump is inaugurated.
Handy for a restorative Martini to steady the nerves......subsequently I've been flying Malaysian.....jolly good crew.....and they no longer fly over the Ukraine, tho unlike SQ they do fly over Iran (Garuda avoided Iran recently too....)
Am pretty disciplined in BA to try and consolidate my favours... provided they are price competitive of course...
BA Gold, SQ Solitaire, Virgin Gold.....they all fall away sooner or later.....Jason!
Since I have BA Gold For Life* am not too worried. I don't think airline status is hereditary...
* still working on GGL for Life which would be really cool
How many years to you have to stay Gold before they give it to you for life? They keep stealing mine!
35,000 Tier Points. Which - for someone doing 2,000 TP a year - is 17 and a half years of work. I've been in this game 20 years, and I'm not there yet...
I give up now, never going to get close to that, unless I can persuade a customer to fly me half way round the world in biz class every fortnight for the next decade!
I am travelling to Edinburgh today, tomorrow and Friday, Aberdeen on Thursday. You don't earn many Tier points as a Scots lawyer!
Personally I prefer it that way. I have gone from finding flying mildly exciting to numbingly tedious and frustrating with all the idiotic security nonsense. I now generally take the train or drive when coming south to London when I used to fly.
Another train fan - when working in Newcastle (nearly) always took the train to London - to the bemusement of American co-workers.....
I would like trains if they could just get rid of their infuriating pricing structure. And I would use them a lot more than I do. I just resent being ripped off because I did not book my ticket online a month before I even knew I needed to go.
It's only the beginning of December, so surely a bit early to be deciding the event of the year ?
Anyone tempted by the odds on England winning the next test ? Seem pretty generous given two fairly closely matched teams, and Root seems overdue a big score. Or am I an incurable optimist ?
Yes you're an incurable optimist!
Given there's still 7% of 2016 left, there must be a reasonable chance of some mega story still to come in the remainder of the year. Unfortunately, with most of the political set-pieces out of the way, if something else does come up now it's likely to be a tragedy.
It's only the beginning of December, so surely a bit early to be deciding the event of the year ?
Anyone tempted by the odds on England winning the next test ? Seem pretty generous given two fairly closely matched teams, and Root seems overdue a big score. Or am I an incurable optimist ?
Yes you're an incurable optimist!
Given there's still 7% of 2016 left, there must be a reasonable chance of some mega story still to come in the remainder of the year. Unfortunately, with most of the political set-pieces out of the way, if something else does come up now it's likely to be a tragedy.
The Christmas deadpool is bound to throw up someone I recall fondly from the 70s.
Labour is putting down a motion tomorrow to demand the Government publish their plans for Brexit. The motion includes the following sub-paragraph ... ""confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50."
There's the devil in the detail of the motion. Who decides what will damage the negotiating position? It has to be the negotiators - the Government. So what's the point of the motion?
The Remain MPs think they should make that decision. They're either terminally stupid or deliberately being childish (I'm being kind here).
They're looking to open up the process to delay in the Lords. Their new remain approach is to hope for a disater to come along and reset the public mood - or if not - push on past the next GE in the EU and hope for a mandate to reverse it there.
I would like trains if they could just get rid of their infuriating pricing structure. And I would use them a lot more than I do. I just resent being ripped off because I did not book my ticket online a month before I even knew I needed to go.
I saw a foreign couple become angry after a ticket inspector or guard or whatever they call them these days explained how they could have saved £100 on their first class tickets by buying them differently.
Mr. E, I agree. That's why the likes of Miller et al. want it to go through Parliament, to allow delay, and amendments, and the possibility of it being voted down.
Labour is putting down a motion tomorrow to demand the Government publish their plans for Brexit. The motion includes the following sub-paragraph ... ""confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50."
There's the devil in the detail of the motion. Who decides what will damage the negotiating position? It has to be the negotiators - the Government. So what's the point of the motion?
The Remain MPs think they should make that decision. They're either terminally stupid or deliberately being childish (I'm being kind here).
They're looking to open up the process to delay in the Lords. Their new remain approach is to hope for a disater to come along and reset the public mood - or if not - push on past the next GE in the EU and hope for a mandate to reverse it there.
Never forget: the referendum disclosed that this country contains 16m traitors. Some of them don't even have white skins
Labour is putting down a motion tomorrow to demand the Government publish their plans for Brexit. The motion includes the following sub-paragraph ... ""confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50."
There's the devil in the detail of the motion. Who decides what will damage the negotiating position? It has to be the negotiators - the Government. So what's the point of the motion?
The Remain MPs think they should make that decision. They're either terminally stupid or deliberately being childish (I'm being kind here).
They're looking to open up the process to delay in the Lords. Their new remain approach is to hope for a disater to come along and reset the public mood - or if not - push on past the next GE in the EU and hope for a mandate to reverse it there.
Never forget: the referendum disclosed that this country contains 16m traitors. Some of them don't even have white skins
Mr. E, I agree. That's why the likes of Miller et al. want it to go through Parliament, to allow delay, and amendments, and the possibility of it being voted down.
Brexiteers: Lord, give us Parliamentary sovereignty, but not right now
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Why would insulating a sector of the economy from foreign competition make it better?
Why can't we have a British state owned company competing. Then we could reinvest profits back into the service rather than subsidising French or German railways...
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
Tg.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
This won't do anything to add capacity for existing normal services for Northern, Trans-Pennine, etc. I guess if the current East Coast Service to KX is reduced to one train an hour when HS2 is running it will free up one path per hour in and out, but that won't achieve much benefit.
I'm not sure that follows. If I get a chance I'll try and dig out the figures later.
Thanks. There were plans to add extra platforms where the carpark is, but I think that has all been shelved now. Oh, for the days when there used to be 3 (or was it 4?) mainline stations serving the city - plenty of capacity back then (yes, I know, it made changing trains a bit of a faff).
There were never any such "days". Leeds only ever had 2 mainline stations - City, which is the present day station, and Central. Given that Leeds Central closed in the 1960s you must be pretty old to remember using it.
I see on CNN an elector from Texas refusing to vote for Trump the electoral college how many others could follow suit . With the recounts as well does anyone think Trump could still be denied the Presidency?
Mr. kle4, the fact it was made advisory rather than binding smacks of quite helpful incompetence for those wishing to frustrate, delay and ignore the result.
Mr. E, I agree. That's why the likes of Miller et al. want it to go through Parliament, to allow delay, and amendments, and the possibility of it being voted down.
I tried to ask Anna Soubry if she wanted a general election soon - she didn't want to answer that.
Michel Barnier says that his first vote as a 20 year old was in the French referendum to welcome the UK into the EEC. He campaigned for a yes vote and still believes this was the right thing.
Michel Barnier says that his first vote as a 20 year old was in the French referendum to welcome the UK into the EEC. He campaigned for a yes vote and still believes this was the right thing.
It's a shame that mambership of the EEC as it was then, was so misrepresented by Heath, Wilson and others in the 70's. The fact that they mislead the public over political and economic union is the sole reason we are where we are today, with such a political division.
If the real nature of what was planned by Heath had been made public, Parliament would never have allowed the 1972 act which gave the government power to fulfil its Treaty Obligations.
Barnier "Cherry picking is not an option" on Single market freedom of movement, goods, services, labour"
Ignore that, it's noise. Even the EEA treaty itself allows nations to abrogate some of the rules of any of the four freedoms if there is reason to do so. Art 112/113 sets out the procedure.
Me neither. Shouty and over emotional, doesn't seem to do any research, doesn't seem particularly knowledgeable about the things she purports to believe so strongly in.
(Bring back Nick Palmer....rarely agreed with him but he was a much better MP)
Michel Barnier says that his first vote as a 20 year old was in the French referendum to welcome the UK into the EEC. He campaigned for a yes vote and still believes this was the right thing.
It's a shame that mambership of the EEC as it was then, was so misrepresented by Heath, Wilson and others in the 70's. The fact that they mislead the public over political and economic union is the sole reason we are where we are today, with such a political division.
If the real nature of what was planned by Heath had been made public, Parliament would never have allowed the 1972 act which gave the government power to fulfil its Treaty Obligations.
Do you not think it absurd to paint this as a conspiracy by one man when Britain had been trying to join, with its eyes open, since the late 50s? Four different Parliaments voted in favour of joining and all the sovereignty arguments were fully aired.
Ignore that, it's noise. Even the EEA treaty itself allows nations to abrogate some of the rules of any of the four freedoms if there is reason to do so. Art 112/113 sets out the procedure.
Not really. This is a myth based on a misreading of what is clearly only a temporary mechanism to be used in extremis. It's just the equivalent of what EU countries can do in extremis. It's certainly not a mechanism for avoiding the obligations of the EEA treaty.
Mr. E, I agree. That's why the likes of Miller et al. want it to go through Parliament, to allow delay, and amendments, and the possibility of it being voted down.
I tried to ask Anna Soubry if she wanted a general election soon - she didn't want to answer that.
She'd make a great target for Paul Nuttall in an early GE. He could easily come through the middle of a three-way marginal.
Ooh, that 1/2 is much more like it. Must be a good chance of an arb between PP and Shadsy.
Actually Time might surprise everyone and put an ordinary, white, rural voter on the front cover. If anyone is person of the year it is the voters of the forgotten towns of Ohio who changed the future of the West.
Time have form. About twelve years ago they put a mirror on the front cover and named the person of the year as 'You' - the guy using Web 2.0 and social media to change everything.
Michel Barnier says that his first vote as a 20 year old was in the French referendum to welcome the UK into the EEC. He campaigned for a yes vote and still believes this was the right thing.
It's a shame that mambership of the EEC as it was then, was so misrepresented by Heath, Wilson and others in the 70's. The fact that they mislead the public over political and economic union is the sole reason we are where we are today, with such a political division.
If the real nature of what was planned by Heath had been made public, Parliament would never have allowed the 1972 act which gave the government power to fulfil its Treaty Obligations.
I would not be so sure. Ask yourself why Mrs Thatcher, for instance, was so strongly in favour. The consensus was that Britain had for decades been in a slow but terminal economic decline and could only be saved by joining the Common Market.
Ignore that, it's noise. Even the EEA treaty itself allows nations to abrogate some of the rules of any of the four freedoms if there is reason to do so. Art 112/113 sets out the procedure.
Not really. This is a myth based on a misreading of what is clearly only a temporary mechanism to be used in extremis. It's just the equivalent of what EU countries can do in extremis. It's certainly not a mechanism for avoiding the obligations of the EEA treaty.
In fact, there is no mechanism that backs that claim up. The only mechanism is in the use of 113, in an attempt to balance the flow of costs occurring due to market distortion by imposing a balancing restriction.
112 is operated freely, by the member state, with no direct oversight from the EU, and with no judicial mechanism for blocking it.
Ooh, that 1/2 is much more like it. Must be a good chance of an arb between PP and Shadsy.
Actually Time might surprise everyone and put an ordinary, white, rural voter on the front cover. If anyone is person of the year it is the voters of the forgotten towns of Ohio who changed the future of the West.
Time have form. About twelve years ago they put a mirror on the front cover and named the person of the year as 'You' - the guy using Web 2.0 and social media to change everything.
Yes, but they've announced a shortlist already. It's going to be one of the eleven names quoted by both bookies. .
Also, wrt Time. Zuckerberg has already been person of year I believe.
I would have thought he would be banned from consideration due to claims by liberal elite media that his platform spread fake news that swung the election for trump.
Trump @ 1-2 is good value for Time Person of the year.
An absolute snip. Pile on would be my advice*.
* This is not advice. Do your own research. Etc etc.
1/2 the Donald is value but so is Shadsy's 50/1 Crispr and Flint, if we can rule out the other individuals on the Time shortlist, and I think we can (unless Plato has intelligence that Farage is widely credited in America with having helped Trump over the line, since that together with Brexit would make 16/1 look a snip).
He can say what he likes - it's all posturing at this stage. Until we trigger Art 50, none of what either side says matters one toss.
"Aw you don't really mean it."
One wonders what the more concrete-lined Leavers would accept as an indication of the EU's true negotiating position. Just possibly, all these EU leaders queuing up to say pretty much exactly the same thing might actually be saying what they think. Just an idea.
Me neither. Shouty and over emotional, doesn't seem to do any research, doesn't seem particularly knowledgeable about the things she purports to believe so strongly in.
(Bring back Nick Palmer....rarely agreed with him but he was a much better MP)
He can say what he likes - it's all posturing at this stage. Until we trigger Art 50, none of what either side says matters one toss.
This is true. An excellent example is that he wants us to agree termination payments without concluding a trade agreement. We'll say 'No way, sonny boy, they are linked." What does he do then? The default will be that we leave with no termination payments, so if we say they are linked, then they are linked.
As any fule 'no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
I think Putin is the best bet for POTY (the Time contest not the PB one!)
A) undeniably been very influential, would deserve the 'prize' on his on own merits
would not only snub Trump, who Time hates, but would drive home the idea that Putin is the true puppet master. Plus it would be great seeing Trumps reaction, he couldn't launch into a tirade against Putin like he did last year with Merkel.
Time may not like Putin on the cover but you can be sure they would prefer him to Trump
Mr. Eagles, I note nobody prominent argued with Cameron's repeated claim he would personally trigger Article 50 the day after a Leave vote.
Yet now many people are claiming it's not a matter of royal prerogative.
As for delaying the bill: it [the referendum] was in the Conservative manifesto. It was certain to pass.
Yes, the PM made it clear (and no-one disagreed with him) that the A50 declaration would be the next day, as if it were a letter written to Brussels.
Yet what we now see has the appearance of a dedicated minority, trying every trick and finding any loophole, in order to be able to ignore the largest single vote in British history.
Mr. kle4, the fact it was made advisory rather than binding smacks of quite helpful incompetence for those wishing to frustrate, delay and ignore the result.
Yes it is, but just because something is more convenient to ignore, doesn't mean it can be (we'll see how the court interprets the referendum - its not a question of it was made advisory, but if it was made non-advisory, as advisory seems to be the default). And just because something is helpful to those with ill intent doesn't mean they cannot be right either. When an opposition criticises a government they do so because its automatic, and they want to see an elected government fail. But sometimes they pick up on something that is correct, in law or policy.
Me neither. Shouty and over emotional, doesn't seem to do any research, doesn't seem particularly knowledgeable about the things she purports to believe so strongly in.
(Bring back Nick Palmer....rarely agreed with him but he was a much better MP)
Nick is probably more eurosceptic than Soubry.
Nick is back in Broxtowe, seeking a council seat I believe.
Ignore that, it's noise. Even the EEA treaty itself allows nations to abrogate some of the rules of any of the four freedoms if there is reason to do so. Art 112/113 sets out the procedure.
Not really. This is a myth based on a misreading of what is clearly only a temporary mechanism to be used in extremis. It's just the equivalent of what EU countries can do in extremis. It's certainly not a mechanism for avoiding the obligations of the EEA treaty.
In fact, there is no mechanism that backs that claim up. The only mechanism is in the use of 113, in an attempt to balance the flow of costs occurring due to market distortion by imposing a balancing restriction.
112 is operated freely, by the member state, with no direct oversight from the EU, and with no judicial mechanism for blocking it.
The articles are there to allow countries confronted with an emergency to act first and get permission later. The action immediately goes into dispute and the country concerned has to demonstrate the abrogation is limited to the least necessary for the shortest time possible. The process is set out elsewhere in the EEA Treaty. I don't have it in front of me.
THE PERSON WHO CHANGED HISTORY FOR THE WORST award goes to Ed Milliband.....
If he hadn't chosen to stand against his brother......David would now be PM. Momentum wouldn't exist. Corbyn would be unknown to all but his wife. There would have been no Referendum no Brexit and Farage would now be doing Brylcreem ads. In the US Trump would be back to vulgarising hotels and we would now be looking forward to the inauguration of the first female POTUS.
THE PERSON WHO CHANGED HISTORY FOR THE WORST award goes to Ed Milliband.....
If he hadn't chosen to stand against his brother......David would now be PM. Momentum wouldn't exist. Corbyn would be unknown to all but his wife. There would have been no Referendum so Brexit wouldn't have happened. Farage would now be doing Brylcreem ads Trump would be groping young girls and we would now be looking forward to the inauguration of the first female POTUS.
Dunno, D. Miliband wasn't great at politics, it's not obvious he'd have won. Scotland would have been the same, although there might have been less Lab->Con and less LibDem->Lab resulting in a continued coalition.
As for the US Farage's only contribution seems to have been to debate prep, and those weren't wildly successful for Trump.
He can say what he likes - it's all posturing at this stage. Until we trigger Art 50, none of what either side says matters one toss.
If that's the case, why is May so very desperate to say nothing? Presumably the EU has now stupidly given away their hand, and the Cincinati Kids of the UK Brexit negotiating team will be rubbing their hands in glee.
I think Putin is the best bet for POTY (the Time contest not the PB one!)
A) undeniably been very influential, would deserve the 'prize' on his on own merits
would not only snub Trump, who Time hates, but would drive home the idea that Putin is the true puppet master. Plus it would be great seeing Trumps reaction, he couldn't launch into a tirade against Putin like he did last year with Merkel.
Time may not like Putin on the cover but you can be sure they would prefer him to Trump
Yes, 25/1 on Putin with Ladbrokes is huge value if they won't give it to Trump.
BTW, Shadsy has Con 1/7 for Thursday's by-election against Betfair's 1.1/1.12. Free money in two days?
He can say what he likes - it's all posturing at this stage. Until we trigger Art 50, none of what either side says matters one toss.
This is true. An excellent example is that he wants us to agree termination payments without concluding a trade agreement. We'll say 'No way, sonny boy, they are linked." What does he do then? The default will be that we leave with no termination payments, so if we say they are linked, then they are linked.
As any fule 'no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You're probably right. In that case nothing much will be agreed. There is neither the time nor the will to compromise from either side.
Mr. Eagles, that would be the Parliament that voted for the referendum?
Voting for a referendum then voting on whether you want to implement the result is ridiculous.
Well there should have been an automaticity clause in the bill as there was in the AV referendum legislation.
Why do some Brexiteers hate the rule of law?
Why do so many Remainers hate democracy?
We're leaving. Just working how to do so.
I mean, if we are leaving the single market as well, as Leave campaigned on, then we need to work out how and when £350 million a week is going to the NHS.
He can say what he likes - it's all posturing at this stage. Until we trigger Art 50, none of what either side says matters one toss.
This is true. An excellent example is that he wants us to agree termination payments without concluding a trade agreement. We'll say 'No way, sonny boy, they are linked." What does he do then? The default will be that we leave with no termination payments, so if we say they are linked, then they are linked.
As any fule 'no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You're probably right. In that case nothing much will be agreed. There is neither the time nor the will to compromise from either side.
Mr. Eagles, that would be the Parliament that voted for the referendum?
Voting for a referendum then voting on whether you want to implement the result is ridiculous.
Well there should have been an automaticity clause in the bill as there was in the AV referendum legislation. Why do some Brexiteers hate the rule of law?
Why do so many Remainers hate democracy?
It is not many of the Remainers that think this way. It is just the hard core Remainers who dislike our sovereignty.
THE PERSON WHO CHANGED HISTORY FOR THE WORST award goes to Ed Milliband.....
If he hadn't chosen to stand against his brother......David would now be PM. Momentum wouldn't exist. Corbyn would be unknown to all but his wife. There would have been no Referendum no Brexit and Farage would now be doing Brylcreem ads. In the US Trump would be back to vulgarising hotels and we would now be looking forward to the inauguration of the first female POTUS.
It refers to keeping the UK in the single market, by means of MPs voting in the Commons. Nowhere does it mention Article 50 being triggered. The article is not about triggering negotiations, but the Commons using its pro-Remain majority to affect the way negotiations go.
He can say what he likes - it's all posturing at this stage. Until we trigger Art 50, none of what either side says matters one toss.
"Aw you don't really mean it."
One wonders what the more concrete-lined Leavers would accept as an indication of the EU's true negotiating position. Just possibly, all these EU leaders queuing up to say pretty much exactly the same thing might actually be saying what they think. Just an idea.
The claim at the time of the referendum was that the EU was DESPERATE to do a deal with us. Which should make it the easiest negotiation ever.
If it doesn't work out that way, the accusation will be that the EU is wilful and we are better out of that corrupt body. But that really is an admission of failure. We didn't persuade other countries of the strength of our negotiating position, in that case.
You're probably right. In that case nothing much will be agreed. There is neither the time nor the will to compromise from either side.
There's certainly a risk of that, which is the main reason why I think the financial markets are seriously underestimating the probability of serious economic dislocation. More optimistically, one can see a possible way forward where there is some cosmetic 'punishment' of the UK in return for a mild settlement on migration, so that each side can talk up their 'victory' for domestic purposes, whilst in the background they agree something which is actually in both sides' interests and doesn't cause too much economic dislocation. I don't think anyone can really know at this stage which way it will go, but the key thing is that politics will trump economics - so we do need a political face-saving deal of some kind.
Mr. Eagles, that would be the Parliament that voted for the referendum?
Voting for a referendum then voting on whether you want to implement the result is ridiculous.
Well there should have been an automaticity clause in the bill as there was in the AV referendum legislation.
Why do some Brexiteers hate the rule of law?
Why do so many Remainers hate democracy?
We're leaving. Just working how to do so.
I mean, if we are leaving the single market as well, as Leave campaigned on, then we need to work out how and when £350 million a week is going to the NHS.
The current way that the NHS operates today, will require an extra £350m a week in the 2020s. Where it comes from is the challenge
Comments
Anyone tempted by the odds on England winning the next test ? Seem pretty generous given two fairly closely matched teams, and Root seems overdue a big score.
Or am I an incurable optimist ?
Given there's still 7% of 2016 left, there must be a reasonable chance of some mega story still to come in the remainder of the year. Unfortunately, with most of the political set-pieces out of the way, if something else does come up now it's likely to be a tragedy.
Scotland's schools have recorded their worst performance in an international survey of pupil performance.
Scotland's scores for maths, reading and science all declined in the latest set of Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) figures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38207729
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/806054403602087936
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_railway_station#/media/File:Leeds_RJD_40.jpg
Three back then - and Hunslet Lane used to be a passenger station (until 1846!)
I was born the year Leeds Central closed, so no, I don't have memories of using it.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/5/13848846/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors
Voting for a referendum then voting on whether you want to implement the result is ridiculous.
http://tinyurl.com/ktzbdwy
Why do some Brexiteers hate the rule of law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Economic_Community_enlargement_referendum,_1972
https://twitter.com/TheCityUK/status/806056740521447424
I note not one Leaver tabled an amendment to make the referendum binding.
Barnier "Cherry picking is not an option" on Single market freedom of movement, goods, services, labour"
If the real nature of what was planned by Heath had been made public, Parliament would never have allowed the 1972 act which gave the government power to fulfil its Treaty Obligations.
Yet now many people are claiming it's not a matter of royal prerogative.
As for delaying the bill: it [the referendum] was in the Conservative manifesto. It was certain to pass.
* This is not advice. Do your own research. Etc etc.
I even did a thread about it.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/06/some-mps-are-set-to-remind-the-electorate-that-referendums-are-advisory-and-not-binding-on-parliament/
(Bring back Nick Palmer....rarely agreed with him but he was a much better MP)
Time have form. About twelve years ago they put a mirror on the front cover and named the person of the year as 'You' - the guy using Web 2.0 and social media to change everything.
I was allowed £3.04
112 is operated freely, by the member state, with no direct oversight from the EU, and with no judicial mechanism for blocking it.
The mechanism has almost never been used. Norway came close with the postal services directive, but backed down. Why do you think that is?
I feel so smug.
One wonders what the more concrete-lined Leavers would accept as an indication of the EU's true negotiating position. Just possibly, all these EU leaders queuing up to say pretty much exactly the same thing might actually be saying what they think. Just an idea.
As any fule 'no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
A) undeniably been very influential, would deserve the 'prize' on his on own merits
Time may not like Putin on the cover but you can be sure they would prefer him to Trump
Yet what we now see has the appearance of a dedicated minority, trying every trick and finding any loophole, in order to be able to ignore the largest single vote in British history.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy-raGHWEAAxwDG.jpg:large
If he hadn't chosen to stand against his brother......David would now be PM. Momentum wouldn't exist. Corbyn would be unknown to all but his wife. There would have been no Referendum no Brexit and Farage would now be doing Brylcreem ads. In the US Trump would be back to vulgarising hotels and we would now be looking forward to the inauguration of the first female POTUS.
Ind 1401
SNP 1033
Con 568
Lab 141
LDem 75
Steve Baker MP ✔ @SteveBakerHW
Contra repeated enquiries by journalists, I know of no pro-Leave MP considering rebelling tomorrow
As for the US Farage's only contribution seems to have been to debate prep, and those weren't wildly successful for Trump.
BTW, Shadsy has Con 1/7 for Thursday's by-election against Betfair's 1.1/1.12. Free money in two days?
I mean, if we are leaving the single market as well, as Leave campaigned on, then we need to work out how and when £350 million a week is going to the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36457120
It refers to keeping the UK in the single market, by means of MPs voting in the Commons. Nowhere does it mention Article 50 being triggered. The article is not about triggering negotiations, but the Commons using its pro-Remain majority to affect the way negotiations go.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/angus-mearns/323652/snp-dont-gain-angus-council-majority-independent-wins-carnoustie-election/
If it doesn't work out that way, the accusation will be that the EU is wilful and we are better out of that corrupt body. But that really is an admission of failure. We didn't persuade other countries of the strength of our negotiating position, in that case.