Good. The more important amendment is however what Starmer envisaged earlier, that Parliament will have the power to reject a deal and instruct the Government to resume negotiations on terms. That is likely to get some Tory support (for varying reasons MPs will want the chance to object to the terms if they don't like them, without thereby triggering hard Brexit), and the EU would IMO be up for stopping the clock if that happened.
Are you joking?? The vote will be on 1. Accepting the deal HMG has negotiated and exiting the EU, or 2. Defaulting to WTO and crashing out of the EU
That's it. Parliament won't be given the chance to stop Brexit entirely. Labour (I think, you can't really tell these days) accepts that.
It's not as simple as that, sorry. Britain withdraws only when a deal to withdraw has been agreed by Government and Parliament, or if either Britain OR the remaining EU fail to agree to continue negotiations. I think it is unlikely that the Government will call time if Parliament has rejected its position, and very unlikely that the rest of the EU would do so.
Obviously there would come a point when one or both sides got fed up with interminable negotiations and withdrawal would either happen or be abandoned. I think Brexit will indeed happen in the end, but not necessarily on the terms that the Government wants.
It requires unanimity from all EU countries though doesn't it to extend the deadline?
Is the Starmer amendment you mention is like to happen?
Feels as though it would totally undermine Theresa May... And therefore Tory MPs pretty unlikely to go for it?
It's a move that will allow Labour to say further down the line that it tried to ensure that the good things about the EU that people like were not given up as a result of Brexit but that the Tories voted them down. It's basically as cynical as the Farron position, but is less likely to work because Labour has no credibility on this or any other issue.
That makes sense to me.
It could work... It enables Labour to reject the... 'Youre ignoring the referendum line" whilst still sticking it to the Tories if Brexit goes badly.
One thing I wonder about is... If TM does bring down immigration dramatically... With she get credit for that? If what people are annoyed about is the immigrants already here.... Then presumably not.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The y are capable of change.
And change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
No, I am just saying things you do not particularly like.
That would be nothing new, but the people in power are not saying "everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant", so I thought I would correct you
You have been saying "the right own this now" etc etc and constantly framing the result as being down to rich, right wing people, despite all the evidence being against you. As we know, if only the rich voted, we would have Remained, and if only the poor voted, we would have left.
When you have to start making stuff up to support your position you have lost. I noticed the other day you commented wryly when Apocalypse interpreted a post you made about black people and IQs in a certain way. You were not surprised she had interpreted it that way, even though you had not said what she felt you had implied. That made me smile.
PB Leavers on full froth this morning! SeanT losing another argument to Alastair. Some things are certain in life, death, taxes and Plato's boys being roundly outwitted!
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The y are capable of change.
And change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
No, I am just saying things you do not particularly like.
That would be nothing new, but the people in power are not saying "everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant", so I thought I would correct you
You have been saying "the right own this now" etc etc and constantly framing the result as being down to rich, right wing people, despite all the evidence being against you. As we know, if only the rich voted, we would have Remained, and if only the poor voted, we would have left.
When you have to start making stuff up to support your position you have lost. I noticed the other day you commented wryly when Apocalypse interpreted a post you made about black people and IQs in a certain way. You were not surprised she had interpreted it that way, even though you had not said what she felt you had implied. That made me smile.
"When you have to start making stuff up to support your position you have lost"
That is true.. but I haven't made anything up. You have said "The right own this now...", and you have tried to imply that Leave won because of rich people. If you hadn't I wouldn't have said it.
The only case you could plausibly bring before the ECJ is on the revocability of A50 or not, as the ECJ is the guardian of the Treaties (and therefore of A50). I can quite easily see a Brit Remoaner making that appeal. Indeed it's probable.
Jo Maugham is already taking a case to that effect to the Irish High Court.
How would anyone have standing to bring that case? Only if we wanted to revoke and the rest of the EU said no would our government have standing I fail to see how anyone else does.
Good. The more important amendment is however what Starmer envisaged earlier, that Parliament will have the power to reject a deal and instruct the Government to resume negotiations on terms. That is likely to get some Tory support (for varying reasons MPs will want the chance to object to the terms if they don't like them, without thereby triggering hard Brexit), and the EU would IMO be up for stopping the clock if that happened.
Are you joking?? The vote will be on 1. Accepting the deal HMG has negotiated and exiting the EU, or 2. Defaulting to WTO and crashing out of the EU
That's it. Parliament won't be given the chance to stop Brexit entirely. Labour (I think, you can't really tell these days) accepts that.
It's do so.
Obviously wants.
It requires unanimity from all EU countries though doesn't it to extend the deadline?
Is the Starmer amendment you mention is like to happen?
Feels as though it would totally undermine Theresa May... And therefore Tory MPs pretty unlikely to go for it?
It's a move that will allow Labour to say further down the line that it tried to ensure that the good things about the EU that people like were not given up as a result of Brexit but that the Tories voted them down. It's basically as cynical as the Farron position, but is less likely to work because Labour has no credibility on this or any other issue.
That makes sense to me.
It could work... It enables Labour to reject the... 'Youre ignoring the referendum line" whilst still sticking it to the Tories if Brexit goes badly.
One thing I wonder about is... If TM does bring down immigration dramatically... With she get credit for that? If what people are annoyed about is the immigrants already here.... Then presumably not.
Indeed - people will not notice that immigration has gone down. Especially in Leave areas (such as Stoke and Copeland, for example) where immigration is relatively low and foreign accents are more noteworthy. But Labour is buggered on this because nobody is listening and Corbyn's leadership allows others to frame the debate (as well as labour's arguments).
Will the government try to preempt the High Court case on withdrawal from the EEA by bundling authorisation to pull out into their A50 bill?
Surely the point with leaving the EEA is out of their hands. The only way it is possible to remain in the EEA is either to remain in the EU or to join EFTA. Since we are leaving the EU and cannot be assured of joining EFTA (even though it is the solution I prefer) then Parliament would be whistling in the wind if they passed a motion saying we must remain in the EEA.
The only case you could plausibly bring before the ECJ is on the revocability of A50 or not, as the ECJ is the guardian of the Treaties (and therefore of A50). I can quite easily see a Brit Remoaner making that appeal. Indeed it's probable.
Jo Maugham is already taking a case to that effect to the Irish High Court.
How would anyone have standing to bring that case? Only if we wanted to revoke and the rest of the EU said no would our government have standing I fail to see how anyone else does.
They're using as a pretext an accusation that the EU27 acted unlawfully by excluding the UK from a Council meeting prior to notification of A50. The intention is to force the Irish court to refer the matter to the ECJ.
@JGBS: MP @AngusMacNeilSNP tells 5 live that Scotland now has a mandate for #indyref2 - expects autumn 2018.
I bet she won't call it. Far too risky. If they lose, as is likely, the SNP will self destruct.
What Sturgeon wants to happen is to bluff and bluff, until TMay tells her she CAN'T have a vote. That's the ideal scenario: it maintains the SNP culture of grievance, and sidesteps a plebiscite she would probably and calamitously lose, and she could then call one (if she wants) in the early 2020s, after ANOTHER Tory election victory at Wesminster...
Yep, exactly. May will no doubt oblige.
But the fact is that Scotland and England are moving apart - irrevocably so, it seems. Like the UK in the EU, how long will Scotland grudgingly, angrily acquiesce to Westminster (Brussels) rule solely for economic reasons?
For labour supporters who despair for the future of their party there is one bright spot- a few years ago IDS was leader of the conservatives. And look at them now....
@BBCsarahsmith: Nicola Sturgeon says it is becoming clearer that Scotland may choose to take future into its own hands. i.e. indyref2 becoming more likely
UKIP must shorten for Stoke after this, their campaign is being written for them... I will take 2.7 if anyone wants to lay?
Vox pops on R5 saying if we get this judgment then they will get on their bikes and go to Stoke to campaign for UKIP.
Not surprised.
It is my view that the general public are sick to death of smart arses using technicalities to deny what seems to be common sense, be it this, not deporting Abu Hamza, letting Lee Rigby's killer sue the prison... The people who make the decisions are so proud, and feel so superior saying "no no you don't understand" in a condescending way, that they cant see how much they are disliked.
As a matter of base politics, the Lib Dem position makes perfect sense. 20-25% of British voters (a very rough guess) are hardcore Remoaners. They want back in to the EU, and they'd happily ignore the vote if they could.
See this incredible Guardian article where the writer literally says "just ignore the vote":
25% of voters is a lot of voters. No one is speaking for them. The Lib Dems could, and should, surely?
Big difference between wanting-to-retain-the-status-quo Remainers and happy-to-sign-up-to-whatever-it-takes Rejoiners. Problem is, the LibDems don't seem to have figured that with 9 MPs they can't preserve the status quo. And the appetite for Rejoining is a tiny proportion of those 20-25% voters. How many SW seats do you think will return LibDem MPs next time if that is their manifesto? (And don't try arguing "well, we could just rejoin the bits of the EU we liked - Single Market, that sort of thing..." The EU has shown no evidence it would entertain this - and if it did, the cost would be exorbitant.)
Again, I think that's an example of the Smithsonian Fallacy (where PB-es think ordinary people are as interested in, and informed about, politics, as the average PB-er)
Ordinary punters won't see those details. The mad Remoaners will just think, What party is on my side, What party likes the EU and wants to rejoin, The Lib Dems! - and vote Lib Dem.
A fine example of the Thomasonian fallacy (in which anyone who disagrees with Sean T, however slightly, is mad, bad or both.
This is a deeply worrying result for Theresa. It was for good reason that she wanted the A50 invocation decided behind closed doors, without MPs sticking their oars in. The opposition - the SNP and the Lib Dems in particular - will indulge in no end of spoiling tactics. There will be an attempt to sabotage controls on immigration whilst allowing Single Market access to go to the wall - i.e. forcing the government to deliver a worst-of-all-worlds Brexit. The Tory Right meanwhile will want to obliterate any trading ties with Europe and the last vestiges of EU workplace protection. This will be part of their greater ambition to realign Britain with Trump's America. This could get messy.
As a matter of base politics, the Lib Dem position makes perfect sense. 20-25% of British voters (a very rough guess) are hardcore Remoaners. They want back in to the EU, and they'd happily ignore the vote if they could.
See this incredible Guardian article where the writer literally says "just ignore the vote":
25% of voters is a lot of voters. No one is speaking for them. The Lib Dems could, and should, surely?
Big difference between wanting-to-retain-the-status-quo Remainers and happy-to-sign-up-to-whatever-it-takes Rejoiners. Problem is, the LibDems don't seem to have figured that with 9 MPs they can't preserve the status quo. And the appetite for Rejoining is a tiny proportion of those 20-25% voters. How many SW seats do you think will return LibDem MPs next time if that is their manifesto? (And don't try arguing "well, we could just rejoin the bits of the EU we liked - Single Market, that sort of thing..." The EU has shown no evidence it would entertain this - and if it did, the cost would be exorbitant.)
Again, I think that's an example of the Smithsonian Fallacy (where PB-es think ordinary people are as interested in, and informed about, politics, as the average PB-er)
Ordinary punters won't see those details. The mad Remoaners will just think, What party is on my side, What party likes the EU and wants to rejoin, The Lib Dems! - and vote Lib Dem.
If there were as many Mad Remoaners out there are as populate this place, the LibDems might have a chance of getting a tenth seat. However, I think there is a large overlap between the subsets of Mad Remoaners and Mad Remoaners Who Post Here....
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The y are capable of change.
And change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
No, I am just saying things you do not particularly like.
That would be nothing new, but the people in power are not saying "everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant", so I thought I would correct you
You have been saying "the right own this now" etc etc and constantly framing the result as being down to rich, right wing people, despite all the evidence being against you. As we know, if only the rich voted, we would have Remained, and if only the poor voted, we would have left.
When you have to start making stuff up to support your position you have lost. I noticed the other day you commented wryly when Apocalypse interpreted a post you made about black people and IQs in a certain way. You were not surprised she had interpreted it that way, even though you had not said what she felt you had implied. That made me smile.
"When you have to start making stuff up to support your position you have lost"
That is true.. but I haven't made anything up. You have said "The right own this now...", and you have tried to imply that Leave won because of rich people. If you hadn't I wouldn't have said it.
I know what I have tried to do. You don't. You know what you want me to have done. That's different. I fully accept that I have said the right own Brexit. That's because they do.
@BBCsarahsmith: Nicola Sturgeon says it is becoming clearer that Scotland may choose to take future into its own hands. i.e. indyref2 becoming more likely
That is her daily mantra but in reality she has nowhere to go at present
I was rather unnerved by this video of the whole thing from Molyneux - I'd bought into the traditional thinking and now not so sure about the pat answers.
@JGBS: MP @AngusMacNeilSNP tells 5 live that Scotland now has a mandate for #indyref2 - expects autumn 2018.
I bet she won't call it. Far too risky. If they lose, as is likely, the SNP will self destruct.
What Sturgeon wants to happen is to bluff and bluff, until TMay tells her she CAN'T have a vote. That's the ideal scenario: it maintains the SNP culture of grievance, and sidesteps a plebiscite she would probably and calamitously lose, and she could then call one (if she wants) in the early 2020s, after ANOTHER Tory election victory at Wesminster...
Yep, exactly. May will no doubt oblige.
But the fact is that Scotland and England are moving apart - irrevocably so, it seems. Like the UK in the EU, how long will Scotland grudgingly, angrily acquiesce to Westminster (Brussels) rule solely for economic reasons?
This is why we need a constitutional convention. May also needs to announce new powers for Scotland post-Brexit - a "carrot".
I bet Scottish Unionists Leavers must be feeling sicker than a cyclist with piles this morning.
Sturgeon won't call a vote. It's too risky. Is my strong suspicion. If she does, TMay will forbid it on the grounds that We're negotiating Brexit, and can't have two/three/multiple negotiations at once. TMay said as much in her Conference Speech.
So Sturgeon may call it, in the firm and justified belief that TMay will knock it back.
To put it another way, this is a game of bluff and double bluff, and the chances of an indyref before Brexit are slim. After Brexit, who knows.
My advice to the SNP is a vote with the following question:
"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"
If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. .
Absolutely, own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The y are capable of change.
And change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
No, I am just saying things you do not particularly like.
That would be nothing new, but the people in power are not saying "everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant", so I thought I would correct you
You have been saying "the right own this now" etc etc and constantly framing the result as being down to rich, right wing people, despite all the evidence being against you. As we know, if only the rich voted, we would have Remained, and if only the poor voted, we would have left.
"When you have to start making stuff up to support your position you have lost"
That is true.. but I haven't made anything up. You have said "The right own this now...", and you have tried to imply that Leave won because of rich people. If you hadn't I wouldn't have said it.
I know what I have tried to do. You don't. You know what you want me to have done. That's different. I fully accept that I have said the right own Brexit. That's because they do.
I don't want you to have done anything! Why on earth do you keep saying that? Not being horrible but as if I care enough to invent something to argue with you about!! Madness
You have just admitted that the thing I quoted you as saying IS true, after accusing me of making it up! What on earth are you therefore arguing about?
For what it's worth, I think only one judge today rose to the challenge before them, Lord Hughes. His judgment is clear and easy for any lay reader to follow. If only the other judgments had been expressed in the same way.
Sadly, because it is a dissenting judgment and the last in order, it will be the least read.
I bet Scottish Unionists Leavers must be feeling sicker than a cyclist with piles this morning.
Sturgeon won't call a vote. It's too risky. Is my strong suspicion. If she does, TMay will forbid it on the grounds that We're negotiating Brexit, and can't have two/three/multiple negotiations at once. TMay said as much in her Conference Speech.
So Sturgeon may call it, in the firm and justified belief that TMay will knock it back.
To put it another way, this is a game of bluff and double bluff, and the chances of an indyref before Brexit are slim. After Brexit, who knows.
My advice to the SNP is a vote with the following question:
"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"
If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.
I doubt the electoral commission would approve that!
BBC Archive #OTD 1971: Apollo 14 astronauts were enrolled in a "Flight Crew Stablilisation Programme", better known as quarantine https://t.co/N30J2ZMels
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. .
Absolutely, own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The y are capable of change.
And change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
No, I am just saying things you do not particularly like.
That would be nothing new, but the people in power are not saying "everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant", so I thought I would correct you
You have been saying "the right own this now" etc etc and constantly framing the result as being down to rich, right wing people, despite all the evidence being against you. As we know, if only the rich voted, we would have Remained, and if only the poor voted, we would have left.
"When you have to start making stuff up to support your position you have lost"
That have said it.
I know what I have tried to do. You don't. You know what you want me to have done. That's different. I fully accept that I have said the right own Brexit. That's because they do.
I don't want you to have done anything! Why on earth do you keep saying that? Not being horrible but as if I care enough to invent something to argue with you about!! Madness
You have just admitted that the thing I quoted you as saying IS true, after accusing me of making it up! What on earth are you therefore arguing about?
I have said that you are correct that I believe the right owns Brexit. You are making up the claim that I believe Leave won because of rich people.
For what it's worth, I think only one judge today rose to the challenge before them, Lord Hughes. His judgment is clear and easy for any lay reader to follow. If only the other judgments had been expressed in the same way.
Sadly, because it is a dissenting judgment and the last in order, it will be the least read.
Except for the people who like to skip to the last page first to see how it ends!
Maybe Corbyn's cunning plan is to step down in favour of someone like Clive Lewis before the general election, someone who is actually very left-wing but who seems centrist by comparison to himself and McDonnell.
I think that is very likely.
A very cunning plan to lull the Tories into a false msense of security in thinking that next election is already in the bag. I would say that the cunning plan is working very nicely. Any new Labour leader is gonna get a honeymoon bounce as well as an anyone-but-Corbyn bounce
Mr. Glenn, don't believe that's a viable option. You can't vote to leave, then stay. It's as ridiculous as Boris' earlier nonsense about us voting to leave so we can negotiate a better deal.
@JGBS: MP @AngusMacNeilSNP tells 5 live that Scotland now has a mandate for #indyref2 - expects autumn 2018.
I bet she won't call it. Far too risky. If they lose, as is likely, the SNP will self destruct.
What Sturgeon wants to happen is to bluff and bluff, until TMay tells her she CAN'T have a vote. That's the ideal scenario: it maintains the SNP culture of grievance, and sidesteps a plebiscite she would probably and calamitously lose, and she could then call one (if she wants) in the early 2020s, after ANOTHER Tory election victory at Wesminster...
Yep, exactly. May will no doubt oblige.
But the fact is that Scotland and England are moving apart - irrevocably so, it seems. Like the UK in the EU, how long will Scotland grudgingly, angrily acquiesce to Westminster (Brussels) rule solely for economic reasons?
I believe, and hope, we will end up with a looser Federal Britain with quite strong ties to the EU.
It's always going to be hard for the SNP to win a vote on total separation as, post-Brexit, leaving the UK means having no currency AND quitting the UK Single Market. Maximum autonomy is much more likely (and more sensible).
Then what happens to the Barnett Formula? Will more autonomy for Scotland come with less funding from London? If so, why just be more autonomous?
For labour supporters who despair for the future of their party there is one bright spot- a few years ago IDS was leader of the conservatives. And look at them now....
Yeah, but the Tories didn't grasp the opportunity to give IDS an even bigger remit as their Leader with an overwhelming second vote against someone as charisma-free as say John Redwood....
@MrHarryCole: No10 say the PM is confident she is getting best possible legal advice from her Attorney General and he has not offered to resign today.
3 Supreme Court judges agreed with the govt, which shows that there was a case to be made. If you think you have a case on something this important, it ought to be tested. Just because you lose doesn't mean that you were wrong to try.
At the least, it's now clarified the position and the statement of the decision re the devolved assemblies is a big win for the govt: a bigger win than the loss of the main case, in fact (albeit that it was always a more likely win).
Speaking of such, there's a temporary discount on two books of mine (well, I'm one writer of many in an anthology), which are top of the last here [Kingdom Asunder and Journeys, which releases 15 February]: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
Maybe Corbyn's cunning plan is to step down in favour of someone like Clive Lewis before the general election, someone who is actually very left-wing but who seems centrist by comparison to himself and McDonnell.
I think that is very likely.
A very cunning plan to lull the Tories into a false msense of security in thinking that next election is already in the bag. I would say that the cunning plan is working very nicely. Any new Labour leader is gonna get a honeymoon bounce as well as an anyone-but-Corbyn bounce
You're all giving Corbyn far too much credit to be politically astute/sensible here.
Maybe Corbyn's cunning plan is to step down in favour of someone like Clive Lewis before the general election, someone who is actually very left-wing but who seems centrist by comparison to himself and McDonnell.
I think that is very likely.
A very cunning plan to lull the Tories into a false msense of security in thinking that next election is already in the bag. I would say that the cunning plan is working very nicely. Any new Labour leader is gonna get a honeymoon bounce as well as an anyone-but-Corbyn bounce
Corbyn is being crap on purpose to make someone else look better in the future?
I bet Scottish Unionists Leavers must be feeling sicker than a cyclist with piles this morning.
Sturgeon won't call a vote. It's too risky. Is my strong suspicion. If she does, TMay will forbid it on the grounds that We're negotiating Brexit, and can't have two/three/multiple negotiations at once. TMay said as much in her Conference Speech.
So Sturgeon may call it, in the firm and justified belief that TMay will knock it back.
To put it another way, this is a game of bluff and double bluff, and the chances of an indyref before Brexit are slim. After Brexit, who knows.
My advice to the SNP is a vote with the following question:
"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"
If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.
I doubt the electoral commission would approve that!
Maybe they'd quibble with the wording but I don't see why they'd object to the essence of the question. If it feels weird sticking the two things together then you could go and draw up a plan for Scotland's status after Brexit composed of those two things, and ask something like "Should the Scottish government implement the "Salmond-Rennie Plan" or whatever.
Maybe Corbyn's cunning plan is to step down in favour of someone like Clive Lewis before the general election, someone who is actually very left-wing but who seems centrist by comparison to himself and McDonnell.
I think that is very likely.
A very cunning plan to lull the Tories into a false msense of security in thinking that next election is already in the bag. I would say that the cunning plan is working very nicely. Any new Labour leader is gonna get a honeymoon bounce as well as an anyone-but-Corbyn bounce
Lewis's views are not my cup of tea, but he is a Labour leader I would get behind. He does not have a record of supporting anti-British organisations, he does not wince in the presence of the Union jack, he is able to reach out beyond his comfort zone and his clear priority is seeing the Tories removed from power. He would be the start of a long road back for Labour. The same applies to Lisa Nandy, who I would vote for if she stood in a leadership election.
For Labour internal politics watchers a recent notable development is that Jon Lansman of Momentum fame seems to have fallen out with John McDonnell.
@JGBS: MP @AngusMacNeilSNP tells 5 live that Scotland now has a mandate for #indyref2 - expects autumn 2018.
I think the SNP will lose, and we'll once again see a tectonic shift in the Scottish political plates.
Given well over 300,000 more Scots voted to stay in the UK than the EU, they've got an uphill task. And still no further on questions like 'currency'....
Otoh we're a lot further on such questions as '(voting) No means we stay in, we are members of the European Union' or assertions 'that the UK is a family of nations, a partnership of equals' and 'Scotland will have one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world'.
I don't think May would have been willing to argue the case for the Single Market and FoM - even if Remainers had remained quiet - because she would have been putting - and being seen as putting - the interests of London/the City ahead of those who voted Out.
Now - even if you think that such a position is in the economic interests of the country and of the people who voted Out (e.g. car workers in Sunderland) - to make that argument in the immediate aftermath of the referendum would have been one hell of a hard sell and would have taken a hell of a lot of political courage. Courage which I don't think May has and also because I think she understood the feeling that a lot of people had (namely that the country had been run for too long in the interests of one part of it), felt that that had to change and could see no way to implement that without taking control of immigration in some way.
At this point the inexorable logic of the EU - namely that membership of the Single Market forbids any sort of control at all of immigration - ensured that the only option was the one which May has taken.
The case for the Single Market and the implications of losing membership of it were not really properly aired in the referendum and certainly have not been discussed in any real sense since. The public and May herself are indifferent, if not hostile to, wailing from the City. It is only when car plants in Sunderland and elsewhere start closing down (if that happens) that the penny will drop and it is likely to be too late by then.
Britain would be happy to be a member of the Single Market, doesn't want the political integration and would like to have (some) control over immigration from the EU. If this was on offer it would please pretty much most people. But that was not and is not now on offer. It is partly a consequence of how the debate was framed in this country but also a result of an unnecessarily inflexible approach by the EU. It did not need to come to this. And even now it should be possible to come to a more intelligent and thoughtful view on a workable relationship between Britain and Continental Europe.
Immovable objects and irresistible forces come to mind. This is how bad decisions are made and why people/states continue on paths despite fearing that they may be the wrong ones.
In theory someone could appeal to the ECHR or ECJ on the basis that leaving the EU breached their human rights.
But I don't think that will happen.
The nub here was parliamentary sovereignty, not human rights.
The Supreme Court said that it was because some rights would be changed that an Act of parliament was required to activate Article 50.
Of course the judgement alluded in various places (16 actually) to "rights" (it is a court of law!). But specifically "human rights" do not feature there. So I repeat, "The nub here was parliamentary sovereignty, not human rights."
@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.
@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.
@JGBS: MP @AngusMacNeilSNP tells 5 live that Scotland now has a mandate for #indyref2 - expects autumn 2018.
I bet she won't call it. Far too risky. If they lose, as is likely, the SNP will self destruct.
What Sturgeon wants to happen is to bluff and bluff, until TMay tells her she CAN'T have a vote. That's the ideal scenario: it maintains the SNP culture of grievance, and sidesteps a plebiscite she would probably and calamitously lose, and she could then call one (if she wants) in the early 2020s, after ANOTHER Tory election victory at Wesminster...
Yep, exactly. May will no doubt oblige.
But the fact is that Scotland and England are moving apart - irrevocably so, it seems. Like the UK in the EU, how long will Scotland grudgingly, angrily acquiesce to Westminster (Brussels) rule solely for economic reasons?
I believe, and hope, we will end up with a looser Federal Britain with quite strong ties to the EU.
It's always going to be hard for the SNP to win a vote on total separation as, post-Brexit, leaving the UK means having no currency AND quitting the UK Single Market. Maximum autonomy is much more likely (and more sensible).
Given the vast political differences, I think only a solution that will allow some form of co-decision or input in defence, foreign affairs or trade at UK level would work now.
I bet Scottish Unionists Leavers must be feeling sicker than a cyclist with piles this morning.
Sturgeon won't call a vote. It's too risky. Is my strong suspicion. If she does, TMay will forbid it on the grounds that We're negotiating Brexit, and can't have two/three/multiple negotiations at once. TMay said as much in her Conference Speech.
So Sturgeon may call it, in the firm and justified belief that TMay will knock it back.
To put it another way, this is a game of bluff and double bluff, and the chances of an indyref before Brexit are slim. After Brexit, who knows.
My advice to the SNP is a vote with the following question:
"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"
If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.
That'd be an illegal question as it asserts something which isn't true. Scotland is not a member of the EU; Scotland is within the EU because it is a region of the UK, which is a member.
It'd also be illegal because it implies (1) an ability to prevent Brexit, or (2) (a) an ability to negotiate Independence before Brexit becomes a fact, and (b) an ability to negotiate membership of the EU with continuity terms from the UK. Both these assertions cannot be guaranteed. Assertions should be for campaigns, not inherent within the question on the ballot paper.
I bet Scottish Unionists Leavers must be feeling sicker than a cyclist with piles this morning.
Sturgeon won't call a vote. It's too risky. Is my strong suspicion. If she does, TMay will forbid it on the grounds that We're negotiating Brexit, and can't have two/three/multiple negotiations at once. TMay said as much in her Conference Speech.
So Sturgeon may call it, in the firm and justified belief that TMay will knock it back.
To put it another way, this is a game of bluff and double bluff, and the chances of an indyref before Brexit are slim. After Brexit, who knows.
My advice to the SNP is a vote with the following question:
"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"
If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. .
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The y are capable of change.
And change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
No, I am just saying things you do not particularly like.
That would be nothing new, but the people in power are not saying "everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant", so I thought I would correct you
"When you have to start making stuff up to support your position you have lost"
That have said it.
I know what I have tried to do. You don't. You know what you want me to have done. That's different. I fully accept that I have said the right own Brexit. That's because they do.
I don't want you to have done anything! Why on earth do you keep saying that? Not being horrible but as if I care enough to invent something to argue with you about!! Madness
You have just admitted that the thing I quoted you as saying IS true, after accusing me of making it up! What on earth are you therefore arguing about?
I have said that you are correct that I believe the right owns Brexit. You are making up the claim that I believe Leave won because of rich people.
You inferred it. You know you did, I know you enjoy being provocative then arguing the toss over it. Accusing me of making stuff up is a bit off though.
At least our discussions have provided one thing, thanks to the link you provided...
If only the rich had voted we would have remained If only the poor had voted we would have left
I'm not impressed by the arguments of the dissenting judges.
"(T)he effect which Parliament has given to EU law under the ECA is inherently conditional on the application of the EU treaties to the UK and therefore on the UK’s membership of the EU"
It's also conditional on the ECA being the law.
"The ECA does not impose any requirement or manifest any intention in respect of the UK’s membership of the EU"
"In respect of"? Are they kidding us? Joining something doesn't impose any requirement in respect of membership of it? Thank goodness these three don't get involved in neighbourly disputes over hedges.
And from Robert Carnwath:
"service of notice under Article 50(2) will not itself change any laws or affect any rights but is merely the start of an essentially political process of negotiating and decisionmaking within the framework of that article"
Of course it changes laws, because (as was assumed in this case) it is irrevocable by either parliament or government. Unless he means "Hey, what's the big deal? Britain could end up staying in the EU after filing A50".
"The start of an essentially political process". You can call it a midpoint in a partly political and partly non-political process if you like. So what?
"The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those negotiations and the process cannot be completed without the enactment by Parliament of primary legislation in some form"
That second part is utter rubbish, as is crystal clear from A50 itself. If it's no deal (because one hasn't been reached or because either the British parliament or the EU parliament doesn't accept the proposed deal), then Britain is out of the EU two years after A50, unless an extension is agreed. The British parliament has no blocking power.
For what it's worth, I think only one judge today rose to the challenge before them, Lord Hughes. His judgment is clear and easy for any lay reader to follow. If only the other judgments had been expressed in the same way.
Sadly, because it is a dissenting judgment and the last in order, it will be the least read.
Thanks for pointing it out - I hadn't made it to page 96!
A flavour:
But, at some risk of over-simplifying, the main question centres on two very well understood constitutional rules, which in this case apparently point in opposite directions. They are these:
Rule 1 - the executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of Parliament, nor the common law; and
Rule 2 - the making and unmaking of treaties is a matter of foreign relations within the competence of the government.
Nobody questions either of these two rules. Mrs Miller relies on the first. The government relies on the second. The government contends that Rule 2 operates to recognise its power, as the handler of foreign relations, to unmake the European Treaties. Mrs Miller contends that Rule 1 shows that the power to handle foreign relations stops short at the point where UK statute law is changed.
I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.
@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.
The complaint is more correctly that Scotland is not the senior partner in the UK.
I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.
No they won't. And there's no way to guarantee that anyway.
For what it's worth, I think only one judge today rose to the challenge before them, Lord Hughes. His judgment is clear and easy for any lay reader to follow. If only the other judgments had been expressed in the same way.
Sadly, because it is a dissenting judgment and the last in order, it will be the least read.
Thanks for pointing it out - I hadn't made it to page 96!
A flavour:
But, at some risk of over-simplifying, the main question centres on two very well understood constitutional rules, which in this case apparently point in opposite directions. They are these:
Rule 1 - the executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of Parliament, nor the common law; and
Rule 2 - the making and unmaking of treaties is a matter of foreign relations within the competence of the government.
Nobody questions either of these two rules. Mrs Miller relies on the first. The government relies on the second. The government contends that Rule 2 operates to recognise its power, as the handler of foreign relations, to unmake the European Treaties. Mrs Miller contends that Rule 1 shows that the power to handle foreign relations stops short at the point where UK statute law is changed.
@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.
The complaint is more correctly that Scotland is not the senior partner in the UK.
Probably better then if Unionist politicians stopped stating that Scotland is an equal partner.
Unless you're suggesting that they don't really mean it?!
I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.
The government would be unlikely to accept such an amendment. Ultimately, if the Lords do try to block the exercise of A.50, the government can either use the Parliament Act to push through the Bill, or create sufficient Peers to vote it through.
@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it
@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.
The complaint is more correctly that Scotland is not the senior partner in the UK.
Probably better then if Unionist politicians stopped stating that Scotland is an equal partner.
Unless you're suggesting that they don't really mean it?!
Scotland shouldn't be an "equal" partner, it ought to have 1/8th the power of the UK - as per its population (I think). If its in the UK of course..
This is a deeply worrying result for Theresa. It was for good reason that she wanted the A50 invocation decided behind closed doors, without MPs sticking their oars in. The opposition - the SNP and the Lib Dems in particular - will indulge in no end of spoiling tactics. There will be an attempt to sabotage controls on immigration whilst allowing Single Market access to go to the wall - i.e. forcing the government to deliver a worst-of-all-worlds Brexit. The Tory Right meanwhile will want to obliterate any trading ties with Europe and the last vestiges of EU workplace protection. This will be part of their greater ambition to realign Britain with Trump's America. This could get messy.
Agreed - but today's judgement only applies to the Art 50 issue. Legislative consent from the devolved administrations for all the various elements of the Great Repeal Bill will be a major source of confrontation, (always) decided by the over-riding vote of Westminster MPs.
I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.
Britain and EU27 won't negotiate Brexit before A50 is filed. That amendment would amount to saying Britain must stay in the EU.
@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.
The complaint is more correctly that Scotland is not the senior partner in the UK.
Probably better then if Unionist politicians stopped stating that Scotland is an equal partner.
Unless you're suggesting that they don't really mean it?!
Remind me of the relative population of Scotland and RUK again?
What is it with Brexiteers that every time they write something on here they manage to fuck up the quote system? Doesn't give me great hope for the future tbh.
On topic, I am very happy with, not to say proud of the UK today.
For those simpletons who don't or didn't or chose not to understand just what the SC opined upon, well it must be a great to have such a simple life.
@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it
Hands up who saw that coming...
That's quite clever from Chuka, and is an early sign of all the shenanigans to come. May needs to wheel out Boris to offer some kind of recantation - just say it was an 'alternative fact' or something.
Comments
https://twitter.com/rinka_dog/status/823849443623628800
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/823844400002465792
It could work... It enables Labour to reject the... 'Youre ignoring the referendum line" whilst still sticking it to the Tories if Brexit goes badly.
One thing I wonder about is... If TM does bring down immigration dramatically... With she get credit for that? If what people are annoyed about is the immigrants already here.... Then presumably not.
You lost. IDS won. That must really hurt.
That is true.. but I haven't made anything up. You have said "The right own this now...", and you have tried to imply that Leave won because of rich people. If you hadn't I wouldn't have said it.
In final update—which added 350K votes to total—each candidate's vote total grew by an improbably identical 28.1-2%: http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/01/23/primaire-a-gauche-comment-les-chiffres-des-votants-ont-ete-manipules_5067703_4355770.html …
But the fact is that Scotland and England are moving apart - irrevocably so, it seems. Like the UK in the EU, how long will Scotland grudgingly, angrily acquiesce to Westminster (Brussels) rule solely for economic reasons?
It is my view that the general public are sick to death of smart arses using technicalities to deny what seems to be common sense, be it this, not deporting Abu Hamza, letting Lee Rigby's killer sue the prison... The people who make the decisions are so proud, and feel so superior saying "no no you don't understand" in a condescending way, that they cant see how much they are disliked.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12479/new-hollywood-blacklist-oppose-trump-or-face-john-nolte
I was rather unnerved by this video of the whole thing from Molyneux - I'd bought into the traditional thinking and now not so sure about the pat answers.
https://youtu.be/wljpYZ8wejA
Maybe there's a thread there..
You OK, hun?
"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"
If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.
Sadly, because it is a dissenting judgment and the last in order, it will be the least read.
BBC Archive
#OTD 1971: Apollo 14 astronauts were enrolled in a "Flight Crew Stablilisation Programme", better known as quarantine https://t.co/N30J2ZMels
A second lost Indy-ref will be the end of her political career.
A very cunning plan to lull the Tories into a false msense of security in thinking that next election is already in the bag. I would say that the cunning plan is working very nicely. Any new Labour leader is gonna get a honeymoon bounce as well as an anyone-but-Corbyn bounce
At the least, it's now clarified the position and the statement of the decision re the devolved assemblies is a big win for the govt: a bigger win than the loss of the main case, in fact (albeit that it was always a more likely win).
Speaking of such, there's a temporary discount on two books of mine (well, I'm one writer of many in an anthology), which are top of the last here [Kingdom Asunder and Journeys, which releases 15 February]:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
His biggest friend is history.
Well it's a thought.
I don't see much of a problem for the government. The important thing is that none of the devolved assemblies have a veto over Brexit.
And, a case of this constitutional importance had to be decided in the Supreme Court, rather than a court of first instance.
For Labour internal politics watchers a recent notable development is that Jon Lansman of Momentum fame seems to have fallen out with John McDonnell.
But you carry on cheering for him.
Now - even if you think that such a position is in the economic interests of the country and of the people who voted Out (e.g. car workers in Sunderland) - to make that argument in the immediate aftermath of the referendum would have been one hell of a hard sell and would have taken a hell of a lot of political courage. Courage which I don't think May has and also because I think she understood the feeling that a lot of people had (namely that the country had been run for too long in the interests of one part of it), felt that that had to change and could see no way to implement that without taking control of immigration in some way.
At this point the inexorable logic of the EU - namely that membership of the Single Market forbids any sort of control at all of immigration - ensured that the only option was the one which May has taken.
The case for the Single Market and the implications of losing membership of it were not really properly aired in the referendum and certainly have not been discussed in any real sense since. The public and May herself are indifferent, if not hostile to, wailing from the City. It is only when car plants in Sunderland and elsewhere start closing down (if that happens) that the penny will drop and it is likely to be too late by then.
Britain would be happy to be a member of the Single Market, doesn't want the political integration and would like to have (some) control over immigration from the EU. If this was on offer it would please pretty much most people. But that was not and is not now on offer. It is partly a consequence of how the debate was framed in this country but also a result of an unnecessarily inflexible approach by the EU. It did not need to come to this. And even now it should be possible to come to a more intelligent and thoughtful view on a workable relationship between Britain and Continental Europe.
Immovable objects and irresistible forces come to mind. This is how bad decisions are made and why people/states continue on paths despite fearing that they may be the wrong ones.
Don't ask me how.
It'd also be illegal because it implies (1) an ability to prevent Brexit, or (2) (a) an ability to negotiate Independence before Brexit becomes a fact, and (b) an ability to negotiate membership of the EU with continuity terms from the UK. Both these assertions cannot be guaranteed. Assertions should be for campaigns, not inherent within the question on the ballot paper.
https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/823857174455664641
Crowder is jolly right wing and very funny at times - he's infiltrated the Wimmin March
https://youtu.be/XUDtoDAGVE8
"(T)he effect which Parliament has given to EU law under the ECA is inherently conditional on the application of the EU treaties to the UK and therefore on the UK’s membership of the EU"
It's also conditional on the ECA being the law.
"The ECA does not impose any requirement or manifest any intention in respect of the UK’s membership of the EU"
"In respect of"? Are they kidding us? Joining something doesn't impose any requirement in respect of membership of it? Thank goodness these three don't get involved in neighbourly disputes over hedges.
And from Robert Carnwath:
"service of notice under Article 50(2) will not itself change any laws or affect any rights but is merely the start of an essentially political process of negotiating and decisionmaking within the framework of that article"
Of course it changes laws, because (as was assumed in this case) it is irrevocable by either parliament or government. Unless he means "Hey, what's the big deal? Britain could end up staying in the EU after filing A50".
"The start of an essentially political process". You can call it a midpoint in a partly political and partly non-political process if you like. So what?
"The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those negotiations and the process cannot be completed without the enactment by Parliament of primary legislation in some form"
That second part is utter rubbish, as is crystal clear from A50 itself. If it's no deal (because one hasn't been reached or because either the British parliament or the EU parliament doesn't accept the proposed deal), then Britain is out of the EU two years after A50, unless an extension is agreed. The British parliament has no blocking power.
A flavour:
But, at some risk of over-simplifying, the main question centres on two very well understood constitutional rules, which in this case apparently point in opposite directions. They are these:
Rule 1 - the executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of Parliament, nor the common law;
and
Rule 2 - the making and unmaking of treaties is a matter of foreign relations within the competence of the government.
Nobody questions either of these two rules. Mrs Miller relies on the first. The government relies on the second. The government contends that Rule 2 operates to recognise its power, as the handler of foreign relations, to unmake the European Treaties. Mrs Miller contends that Rule 1 shows that the power to handle foreign relations stops short at the point where UK statute law is changed.
Unless you're suggesting that they don't really mean it?!
Lord Chancellor praises independent judiciary and rule of law.
IDS on his own.
(Well apart from his fanboi MarqueeMark...)
Hands up who saw that coming...
On topic, I am very happy with, not to say proud of the UK today.
For those simpletons who don't or didn't or chose not to understand just what the SC opined upon, well it must be a great to have such a simple life.