@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.
or she could just tell Chuka to stop being a dickhead
@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...
Could this happen? Might be hard for MPs to vote against....
@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...
Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.
@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..
Rather less than that. Scotland's population is roughly 8¼% of the UK's total, so about a 1/12th share. It is, however, almost exactly an equal partner with Yorkshire.
@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?!
An equal or unequal partner with whom? Where is the English government?
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.
can they use the Parliament Act for this? I think their could be a fight in the courts over that..........
@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...
Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.
What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?
@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
@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...
Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.
What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?
The lies from all sides of the campaign were equally egregious.
Should voters not recognise electioneering clap trap. exaggeration and 1/4 truths by now, there is little help for them.
@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's that got to do with what I said?
On the off chance that you have the intellectual capacity to understand the contradiction to which I was referring, let me remind you what Unionists pols have had to say on the matter.
Darling: 'Today we are equal partners in the United Kingdom.' Davidson: 'The overwhelming majority of Scots believe in the United Kingdom and want to remain part of this 300-year-long equal partnership of prosperity, security, and pride.' Lamont: 'It is a union of equals and partnership: not a contractual union or marriage of convenience.' May: 'A future in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to flourish side-by-side as equal partners.'
@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,
Not something you read often.
And if 'cheap political stunts' are how one of Labour's 'bright hopes for the future' aims to deal with the major challenge of our days then perhaps a tad over generous?
@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...
Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.
What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?
The lies from all sides of the campaign were equally egregious.
Should voters not recognise electioneering clap trap. exaggeration and 1/4 truths by now, there is little help for them.
I don't think most voters believed a syllable of what they were told by either campaign.
@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...
Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.
What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?
The lies from all sides of the campaign were equally egregious.
Should voters not recognise electioneering clap trap. exaggeration and 1/4 truths by now, there is little help for them.
I couldn't agree more. But not really fair to criticise a politician who picks on one such lie.
@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...
Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.
What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?
The lies from all sides of the campaign were equally egregious.
Should voters not recognise electioneering clap trap. exaggeration and 1/4 truths by now, there is little help for them.
Ah yes, but leavers are thick and easily led, whereas remainers are really clever and have firm principles.
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.
can they use the Parliament Act for this? I think their could be a fight in the courts over that..........
They can use the Parliament Act but not until next year. There has to be a 12 month gap, which obviously screws up the March timetable (and, more seriously, would run dangerously close to the 2020GE for the final Brexit date).
If the Lords blocked a Brexit on terms the government will accept, we're looking at a general election with an explicit pledge to deal with the Lords problem, whether that be democratic mandate, peer-swamping, reform or - ultimately - abolition. Of course, that might also take the Parliament Act but generally the Lords back down when facing oblivion. If there's one common theme over the last 100 years, it's that the Lords does the minimum necessary to prevent more drastic change.
@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?!
Unionist politicians like Sturgeon. Her devotion to the European Union is slavish and embarassing.
@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,
Not something you read often.
And if 'cheap political stunts' are how one of Labour's 'bright hopes for the future' aims to deal with the major challenge of our days then perhaps a tad over generous?
"cheap political stunts" = holding the official Leave campaign to account.
@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...
Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.
What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?
The lies from all sides of the campaign were equally egregious.
Should voters not recognise electioneering clap trap. exaggeration and 1/4 truths by now, there is little help for them.
Ah yes, but leavers are thick and easily led, whereas remainers are really clever and have firm principles.
@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,
Not something you read often.
And if 'cheap political stunts' are how one of Labour's 'bright hopes for the future' aims to deal with the major challenge of our days then perhaps a tad over generous?
"cheap political stunts" = holding the official Leave campaign to account.
Bit late for that now. It is dissolved. It is no more.
@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
There is a path that Sturgeon is following towards the calling of indyRef2.
In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.
Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.
And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes
I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.
@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...
Could this happen? Might be hard for MPs to vote against....
It could be used as a totemic issue: voted down but illustrative of the utter untrustworthiness of all Leave's promises. Then bigger issues such as Single Market access will be thrown into the mix. The opposition parties will do everything in their power to pin the label of 'betrayal' on Leave's coattails. And if the Tories become spooked enough then who knows...
If May refuses an independence referendum on the grounds that it might be carried, there will be the biggest constitutional crisis in Britain since 1745. Brexit is stressing the constitutional fabric enough already. Don't believe the Supreme Court judgment of no LEGAL requirement for Scottish agreement is the issue sorted. Those of us who think we're best served working in partnership will have to hope the Indy No percentages hold up in opinion polls so Nicola Sturgeon doesn't feel confident to hold a new referendum. And once we're through the present clusterfuck in fifteen to thirty years time maybe we can get sensible relationship with the EU, if it still exists in a recognisable form.
@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 would make it a money bill, which couldn't be amended or rejected by the House of Lords....
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.
SNP doesn't set the question
They did at the last referendum - although they bowed to suggest from the Electoral Commission they still had final say I believe.
If England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all "equal" partners then the English voter must simply put be worth alot less than the other nations.
What intellectually bankrupt balderdash 'Better Together' came out with during the Ref.
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.
I am really pleased with the verdict and while I am not a fan of Gina Miller she is to be congratulated, but I question her motives and in a strange way feel she has lost as well as it makes the process clear and has negated any blocking tactics from the devolved adminstrations
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.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
@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?!
An equal or unequal partner with whom? Where is the English government?
It's fair to say that the Scottish government has just as much power over foreign affairs as the English government
If England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all "equal" partners then the English voter must simply put be worth alot less than the other nations.
What intellectually bankrupt balderdash 'Better Together' came out with during the Ref.
I don't think England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are equal partners. However Unionist politicians then and now are happy to peddle the lie that we are in the hope that those nasty Nats will just go away and stop putting ideas into good British folk's heads.
@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
There is a path that Sturgeon is following towards the calling of indyRef2.
In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.
Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.
And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes
I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.
Don't you think she should start governing Scotland instead of a daily mantra on Independence
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.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
Both William IV and George V accepted the principle of creating huge numbers of new peers when the Lords was being obstructionist (the Great Reform Act and the Budget Crisis, respectively). She might not want to but it would be constitutionally legitimate in the circumstances and certainly better than refusing, if matters had come down to that. Should be mentioned that George V demanded a second general election in 1910 first, to ensure that public opinion was with the government.
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.
SNP doesn't set the question
They did at the last referendum - although they bowed to suggest from the Electoral Commission they still had final say I believe.
It was negotiated with Cameron as part of the broader package of arrangements for the referendum.
You might say that they were 'equal partners' in setting the question
@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?!
An equal or unequal partner with whom? Where is the English government?
It's fair to say that the Scottish government has just as much power over foreign affairs as the English government
What about Scottish elected representatives v. English elected representatives?
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.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
The maximum period that the Lords could delay passage of the Bill is 12 months.
As to new peers, the Queen might want the issue to be tested in a general election, but if the voters returned the Conservatives to office, she would create the peers.
@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
There is a path that Sturgeon is following towards the calling of indyRef2.
In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.
Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.
And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes
I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.
Don't you think she should start governing Scotland instead of a daily mantra on Independence
The SNP doesn't want to govern Scotland, they want to leave that to Brussels/Berlin.
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.
SNP doesn't set the question
They did at the last referendum - although they bowed to suggest from the Electoral Commission they still had final say I believe.
It was negotiated with Cameron as part of the broader package of arrangements for the referendum.
You might say that they were 'equal partners' in setting the question
Cameron had no say in the referendum question. He sceded control of question setting to Salmond.
Jeremy Corbun hates the free movement of Capital more than he likes free movement of people and thats why he is not defending the single market as much as all the other social democrats want him to.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Mr. Alistair, indeed, yet another referendum error by Cameron. However, May might do things differently, if it comes to that.
If there were an early election, it'd be interesting because the boundaries would be more Labour friendly than the new ones will be, but Labour would definitely have Corbyn as its potential prime minister.
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.
Why not? To my mind it seems inevitable given the attitude of the hard core remainers.
It would have no effect on Brexit, as we would be leaving, and the ECJ will cease to have power over us. To allow the ECJ to stop Brexit would be a constitutional absurdity, as well as an outrage - admitting that the EU is a prison you can never leave. Won't happen.
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.
If May refuses an independence referendum on the grounds that it might be carried, there will be the biggest constitutional crisis in Britain since 1745. Brexit is stressing the constitutional fabric enough already. Don't believe the Supreme Court judgment of no LEGAL requirement for Scottish agreement is the issue sorted. Those of us who think we're best served working in partnership will have to hope the Indy No percentages hold up in opinion polls so Nicola Sturgeon doesn't feel confident to hold a new referendum. And once we're through the present clusterfuck in fifteen to thirty years time maybe we can get sensible relationship with the EU, if it still exists in a recognisable form.
I think May's grounds for refusing indyref2 in 2018 would be that such a Scottish vote would make Brexit impossible, as the UK would not know for sure its own constitutional position, and economic interests - or even its own geographical size - as we Brexited in 2019. How could the EU and UK agree on anything on such shifting sands?
Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.
So May would be right to refuse a vote, before Brexit, and I believe she would do that.
So the question comes back to Sturgeon: would she demand a vote in the hope and belief TMay will refuse her? That's Sturgeon's optimal outcome, politically.
Or May could say, yes have one in 2022, 3 or 4 years post Brexit.
After all, it felt as if they needed about 3 unending years of discussion (or was that fractious bullying?) to prevaricate and campaign last time.
Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.
It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.
Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.
They can use the Parliament Act but not until next year. There has to be a 12 month gap, which obviously screws up the March timetable (and, more seriously, would run dangerously close to the 2020GE for the final Brexit date).
"Dangerously close" in the sense of: She can put off the voters looking in the box and finding out that their cat was dead until after the election, while still maximizing her extended opposition-free Jeremy Corbyn All-Year Christmas by leaving the general election to almost 2020.
I doubt that the Lords will be that kind to her, though.
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.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
The maximum period that the Lords could delay passage of the Bill is 12 months.
As to new peers, the Queen might want the issue to be tested in a general election, but if the voters returned the Conservatives to office, she would create the peers.
This was one of the biggest arguments against the FTPA removing the Crown's prerogative power to dissolve parliament. Genuine crises can't necessarily be resolved now with an appeal to the people to decide one way or the other and with the Crown having the power to impose that solution if necessary. An early dissolution now requires parliament's consent, one way or another.
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.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
Both William IV and George V accepted the principle of creating huge numbers of new peers when the Lords was being obstructionist (the Great Reform Act and the Budget Crisis, respectively). She might not want to but it would be constitutionally legitimate in the circumstances and certainly better than refusing, if matters had come down to that. Should be mentioned that George V demanded a second general election in 1910 first, to ensure that public opinion was with the government.
This, I believe, glosses over the George V moment. His two private secretaries were greatly split on the right response to Asquith's request for the promise of the creation of hundreds of Liberal peers. Lord Knollys was in favour; Arthur Bigge was, in the words of Asquith's biographer, Roy Jenkins, "passionately. almost violently, opposed" - asking whether this was "straight" and "is this English?"
Knollys won the day, although there is some evidence that he withheld crucial knowledge about the Cabinet situation as the King very reluctantly agreed to the proposal.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
@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
There is a path that Sturgeon is following towards the calling of indyRef2.
In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.
Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.
And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes
I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.
Don't you think she should start governing Scotland instead of a daily mantra on Independence
The SNP doesn't want to govern Scotland, they want to leave that to Brussels/Berlin.
No, no: Scotland will be an equal partner with Germany in the EU.
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.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
The maximum period that the Lords could delay passage of the Bill is 12 months.
As to new peers, the Queen might want the issue to be tested in a general election, but if the voters returned the Conservatives to office, she would create the peers.
This was one of the biggest arguments against the FTPA removing the Crown's prerogative power to dissolve parliament. Genuine crises can't necessarily be resolved now with an appeal to the people to decide one way or the other and with the Crown having the power to impose that solution if necessary. An early dissolution now requires parliament's consent, one way or another.
Is there any chance of the FTPA being repealed? I suppose it's case of turkeys and Christmas?
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
It is dickheads like this that lead to those cold callers regarding PPI, car crashes and whatnot. Every day I hope they die a horrible and slow death.
Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.
It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.
Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.
Wrong. YES in indyref 2 in 2018 means the same currency conundrum (if not worse, as the euro would be off the menu til you rejoined the EU), plus you'd be out of the EU Single Market (til you rejoined) AND you'd be out of the UK Single Market forever (so suddenly tariffs at Berwick are a reality) and would there be Free Movement with England? You can't say for sure, because Brexit won't have concluded, so you won't know what deal rUK will have agreed with the EU, and on and on and on. It's endless.
And there's no guarantee of speedy EU re-entry after indyref. Spain would make you wait til Brexit was done. Legally, when would that be? 2019? There might be legal difficulties around the trading relationship til the 2020s. There might (probably will be) a transitonal deal of 2-3 years? 5? So maybe you couldn't rejoin the EU til 2023?
In the intervening years Scotland would be in total limbo.
Brexit introduces a whole new mega-dimension of chaos on all Scottish sides, indeed I'd say Brexit makes an indyref before we have Brexited a political and maybe legal impossibility.
Another Indyref might well trigger a process of Balkanization in Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lowlands returning to England, Shetland and Orkney rejoining Norway , with the Picts fighting the Celts over what's left.
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.
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.
Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
The maximum period that the Lords could delay passage of the Bill is 12 months.
As to new peers, the Queen might want the issue to be tested in a general election, but if the voters returned the Conservatives to office, she would create the peers.
This was one of the biggest arguments against the FTPA removing the Crown's prerogative power to dissolve parliament. Genuine crises can't necessarily be resolved now with an appeal to the people to decide one way or the other and with the Crown having the power to impose that solution if necessary. An early dissolution now requires parliament's consent, one way or another.
Is there any chance of the FTPA being repealed? I suppose it's case of turkeys and Christmas?
Let's hope so. Piece of Osborne nonsense. May comes across as a bit of a traditionalist, maybe she will get rid of it.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
Business people who get involved in this sort of thing are fools too. You can go away for a long time for money laundering. And of course given the nature of the people you are dealing with you can risk a lot more than that.
One side-effect of today's ruling and the timetable for Davis' Brexit Bill is that the issue will dominate news reporting for most of the Copeland and Stoke by-election campaigns.
@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
There is a path that Sturgeon is following towards the calling of indyRef2.
In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.
Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.
And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes
I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.
Don't you think she should start governing Scotland instead of a daily mantra on Independence
The SNP doesn't want to govern Scotland, they want to leave that to Brussels/Berlin.
No, no: Scotland will be an equal partner with Germany in the EU.
Have any EU pols lied..cough..stated that that would be the case?
Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.
It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.
Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.
Wrong. YES in indyref 2 in 2018 means the same currency conundrum (if not worse, as the euro would be off the menu til you rejoined the EU), plus you'd be out of the EU Single Market (til you rejoined) AND you'd be out of the UK Single Market forever (so suddenly tariffs at Berwick are a reality) and would there be Free Movement with England? You can't say for sure, because Brexit won't have concluded, so you won't know what deal rUK will have agreed with the EU, and on and on and on. It's endless.
And there's no guarantee of speedy EU re-entry after indyref. Spain would make you wait til Brexit was done. Legally, when would that be? 2019? There might be legal difficulties around the trading relationship til the 2020s. There might (probably will be) a transitonal deal of 2-3 years? 5? So maybe you couldn't rejoin the EU til 2023?
In the intervening years Scotland would be in total limbo.
Brexit introduces a whole new mega-dimension of chaos on all Scottish sides, indeed I'd say Brexit makes an indyref before we have Brexited a political and maybe legal impossibility.
Another Indyref might well trigger a process of Balkanization in Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lowlands returning to England, Shetland and Orkney rejoining Norway , with the Picts fighting the Celts over what's left.
It is Brexit that has triggered the process of Balkanisation in the UK.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
Maybe not minnows, but remora do OK swimming with sharks...
Maybe its time England & Wales go forward alone... I'm tired of Scotland trying to dominate everything.
If it is the wish of the people of Scotland to leave the UK, then so be it. Trouble is there never seems to be enough of them to win a referendum. – Third time lucky, perhaps…!
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
Business people who get involved in this sort of thing are fools too. You can go away for a long time for money laundering. And of course given the nature of the people you are dealing with you can risk a lot more than that.
I certainly wouldn't recommend becoming a money launderer, but there are people who make a lot of money out of it, and are able to cover their tracks.
But, your last point is quite true. I read a real horror story about a Scottish accountant who laundered money for criminals. She got greedy and stole from them. She was found dead sitting on a chair in a warehouse, with her feet *nailed* to the floor.
Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.
It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.
Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.
Wrong. YES in indyref 2 in 2018 means the same currency conundrum (if not worse, as the euro would be off the menu til you rejoined the EU), plus you'd be out of the EU Single Market (til you rejoined) AND you'd be out of the UK Single Market forever (so suddenly tariffs at Berwick are a reality) and would there be Free Movement with England? You can't say for sure, because Brexit won't have concluded, so you won't know what deal rUK will have agreed with the EU, and on and on and on. It's endless.
And there's no guarantee of speedy EU re-entry after indyref. Spain would make you wait til Brexit was done. Legally, when would that be? 2019? There might be legal difficulties around the trading relationship til the 2020s. There might (probably will be) a transitonal deal of 2-3 years? 5? So maybe you couldn't rejoin the EU til 2023?
In the intervening years Scotland would be in total limbo.
Brexit introduces a whole new mega-dimension of chaos on all Scottish sides, indeed I'd say Brexit makes an indyref before we have Brexited a political and maybe legal impossibility.
Another Indyref might well trigger a process of Balkanization in Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lowlands returning to England, Shetland and Orkney rejoining Norway , with the Picts fighting the Celts over what's left.
It is Brexit that has triggered the process of Balkanisation in the UK.
And if Remain had won by a tiny majority, with Scotland's Remain vote being enough to overrule a narrow Leave vote in England and Wales? Now that really could have caused the break-up of the UK.
Maybe its time England & Wales go forward alone... I'm tired of Scotland trying to dominate everything.
If it is the wish of the people of Scotland to leave the UK, then so be it. Trouble is there never seems to be enough of them to win a referendum. – Third time lucky, perhaps…!
If England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all "equal" partners then the English voter must simply put be worth alot less than the other nations.
What intellectually bankrupt balderdash 'Better Together' came out with during the Ref.
I don't think England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are equal partners. However Unionist politicians then and now are happy to peddle the lie that we are in the hope that those nasty Nats will just go away and stop putting ideas into good British folk's heads.
No, it's absolutely clear now that England drives the UK's car and it is England which matters most to the main UK-wide parties. That is, of course, understandable; but that does not help the Scots. I cannot see how the UK can stay together from here in the absence of a major constitutional rethink. And I do not think our elected leaders are capable of that. It may be that, sadly, Brexit is the ideal time for the UK to pop its clogs.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
Maybe not minnows, but remora do OK swimming with sharks...
Heading into shark infested waters can be good fun, but you need to be careful not to lose an arm or a leg.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
Business people who get involved in this sort of thing are fools too. You can go away for a long time for money laundering. And of course given the nature of the people you are dealing with you can risk a lot more than that.
I certainly wouldn't recommend becoming a money launderer, but there are people who make a lot of money out of it, and are able to cover their tracks.
But, your last point is quite true. I read a real horror story about a Scottish accountant who laundered money for criminals. She got greedy and stole from them. She was found dead sitting on a chair in a warehouse, with her feet *nailed* to the floor.
Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.
It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.
Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.
Wrong. YES in indyref 2 in 2018 means the same currency conundrum (if not worse, as the euro would be off the menu til you rejoined the EU), plus you'd be out of the EU Single Market (til you rejoined) AND you'd be out of the UK Single Market forever (so suddenly tariffs at Berwick are a reality) and would there be Free Movement with England? You can't say for sure, because Brexit won't have concluded, so you won't know what deal rUK will have agreed with the EU, and on and on and on. It's endless.
And there's no guarantee of speedy EU re-entry after indyref. Spain would make you wait til Brexit was done. Legally, when would that be? 2019? There might be legal difficulties around the trading relationship til the 2020s. There might (probably will be) a transitonal deal of 2-3 years? 5? So maybe you couldn't rejoin the EU til 2023?
In the intervening years Scotland would be in total limbo.
Brexit introduces a whole new mega-dimension of chaos on all Scottish sides, indeed I'd say Brexit makes an indyref before we have Brexited a political and maybe legal impossibility.
Another Indyref might well trigger a process of Balkanization in Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lowlands returning to England, Shetland and Orkney rejoining Norway , with the Picts fighting the Celts over what's left.
It is Brexit that has triggered the process of Balkanisation in the UK.
And if Remain had won by a tiny majority, with Scotland's Remain vote being enough to overrule a narrow Leave vote in England and Wales? Now that really could have caused the break-up of the UK.
Brexit and maintaining the territorial integrity of the UK are incompatible objectives.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor #indyref2 update: Sturgeon says it's now "ever closer". Unclear whether that an advance on "highly likely" and "more likely".
Comments
Might be hard for MPs to vote against....
Should voters not recognise electioneering clap trap. exaggeration and 1/4 truths by now, there is little help for them.
On the off chance that you have the intellectual capacity to understand the contradiction to which I was referring, let me remind you what Unionists pols have had to say on the matter.
Darling: 'Today we are equal partners in the United Kingdom.'
Davidson: 'The overwhelming majority of Scots believe in the United Kingdom and want to remain part of this 300-year-long equal partnership of prosperity, security, and pride.'
Lamont: 'It is a union of equals and partnership: not a contractual union or marriage of convenience.'
May: 'A future in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to flourish side-by-side as equal partners.'
And if 'cheap political stunts' are how one of Labour's 'bright hopes for the future' aims to deal with the major challenge of our days then perhaps a tad over generous?
If the Lords blocked a Brexit on terms the government will accept, we're looking at a general election with an explicit pledge to deal with the Lords problem, whether that be democratic mandate, peer-swamping, reform or - ultimately - abolition. Of course, that might also take the Parliament Act but generally the Lords back down when facing oblivion. If there's one common theme over the last 100 years, it's that the Lords does the minimum necessary to prevent more drastic change.
Yes, funny that, how a 'Major humiliation for May Obama has sunk without trace...'
In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.
Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.
And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes
I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.
If England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all "equal" partners then the English voter must simply put be worth alot less than the other nations.
What intellectually bankrupt balderdash 'Better Together' came out with during the Ref.
As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"
You might say that they were 'equal partners' in setting the question
As to new peers, the Queen might want the issue to be tested in a general election, but if the voters returned the Conservatives to office, she would create the peers.
https://twitter.com/nickcohen4/status/823859220001030146
Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.
If there were an early election, it'd be interesting because the boundaries would be more Labour friendly than the new ones will be, but Labour would definitely have Corbyn as its potential prime minister.
After all, it felt as if they needed about 3 unending years of discussion (or was that fractious bullying?) to prevaricate and campaign last time.
Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/organizer-dc-womens-march-trump-pictured-flashing-isis-sign/
Clearly the actions of an ISIS supporter
https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/635589552414027776?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-womens-march-attacked-online_us_58865134e4b0e3a7356adbb2
It's a bit funny but true that the name/word Sarsour means "PIMP" in Hebrew.
I doubt that the Lords will be that kind to her, though.
But Ruth Davidson would be a far better advocate for No than anyone last time.
Knollys won the day, although there is some evidence that he withheld crucial knowledge about the Cabinet situation as the King very reluctantly agreed to the proposal.
But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.
http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-source/gateway-pundit
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/823872130920185856
See some of her many tweets wishing for ISIS to be deleted, as per the one I linked from August 2015
But, your last point is quite true. I read a real horror story about a Scottish accountant who laundered money for criminals. She got greedy and stole from them. She was found dead sitting on a chair in a warehouse, with her feet *nailed* to the floor.
Anyway, I must be off.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/why-travelling-east-makes-your-team-play-badly-ht0wc3kbj
And yes. Never steal from thieves.
IDS seems to be under the impression that split decisions are unusual in the Supreme Court
#indyref2 update: Sturgeon says it's now "ever closer". Unclear whether that an advance on "highly likely" and "more likely".