Its strange the Guardian and BBC seem totally uninterested in these latest wikileaks about American hacking...what have wikileaks done to go from heroes to in their bad books...innocent face.
D-notice?
Given that didn't happen / stop the Guardian reporting on all the Snowdon stuff, seems highly unlikely.
Mr Mings really should learn not to go heading peoples elbows...it can be very painful. But then Mr Ibrahimovic probably would be wise not to try to put his head under the studs of other peoples boots.
Crickey...imagine if a madman got hold of Presidents Trump's twitter account...they could make all sorts of unfounded claims about past and present world leaders.
" I don’t have an opinion about what happened, or didn’t happen, with the wiretapping. But this story did make me laugh when I realized we find ourselves in the following fun situation:
1. President Trump is the world’s biggest liar (according to his foes). And… 2. President Trump now has direct access to more national secrets than any other living human being.
And that means fun.
This wiretapping situation shows us how much fun it will be. Six months ago, if Trump made a hard-to-believe claim about something that is also hard to verify, the country would assume he was lying, incorrect, or negotiating. Now, if he says something hard-to-believe, such as the recent wiretapping claim, you have to wonder if the President knows something you don’t. Because he knows a lot of somethings you don’t..."
This also means every 'Russian hack' could just as likely be a false flag CIA hack.
I don't think the CIA is attacking the US and trying to frame Russia.
The problem I see is that when the US blames Russia and points to evidence in the software, how does the US get around the issue that they possess that same software and use the same techniques, and have an interest in using that to disguise their own attacks? Basically claims of digital "fingerprints" providing proof of the origin of an attack are worthless now, and should have been treated with more scepticism in the past.
The Russian government is going to make this point very clearly the next time the US points the finger.
Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).
Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.
It'll be the People's Budget all over again.
But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.
Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)
I've been two seminars in the past few years on the FTPA, it is interesting, it was geared for hung parliaments between 2010 and 2020, hence the sunset clause.
It is also why I disagree with David Herdson on Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM in those circumstances.
It's not really a sunset clause though; it's more an afternoon-tea clause. Nothing will change without further primary legislation.
As an aside, if you think Corbyn becoming PM is unlikely, wait till you see my next off-the-wall tip.
I'm busy this week/weekend, but the following weekend, I plan to offer a sensational tip.
Next PM - Sion Simon.
No really.
Is my piece on British Parties should follow the US model and choose their nominees/leaders via primaries outside of Parliament, but look to the devolved assemblies/mayors.
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
Mr Mings really should learn not to go heading peoples elbows...it can be very painful. But then Mr Ibrahimovic probably would be wise not to try to put his head under the studs of other peoples boots.
Quite.
It does seem that professional footballers suffer from appalling spatial awareness, chronic on-field verbosity and a desperate lack of acting talent.
Jointly developed CIA+MI5 malware infests Samsung smart TVs to turn them into covert microphones #Vault7 https://t.co/Ki0wRlgjPP
Has Donald Trump got any Samsung smart TV's in Trump Towers? Or more to the point, did he in October 2016 (one assumes they have been thrown out the windows by now!) No bugging required, just turn on the "telly"....
Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).
Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.
It'll be the People's Budget all over again.
But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.
Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)
I've been two seminars in the past few years on the FTPA, it is interesting, it was geared for hung parliaments between 2010 and 2020, hence the sunset clause.
It is also why I disagree with David Herdson on Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM in those circumstances.
It's not really a sunset clause though; it's more an afternoon-tea clause. Nothing will change without further primary legislation.
As an aside, if you think Corbyn becoming PM is unlikely, wait till you see my next off-the-wall tip.
I'm busy this week/weekend, but the following weekend, I plan to offer a sensational tip.
Next PM - Sion Simon.
No really.
Is my piece on British Parties should follow the US model and choose their nominees/leaders via primaries outside of Parliament, but look to the devolved assemblies/mayors.
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
A cross-bencher Lord presumably, and an appointed one not a hereditary. (Or a Bishop technically I guess)
Holy Cats - it's all unclassified, so no one can be prosecuted here or accused of piracy using it as it's not copyright either
Wikileaks WikiLeaks #Vault7 reveals "one of the most astounding intelligence own goals in living memory," according to editor @JulianAssangehttps://t.co/GyzNXaS13d
There is a reason for its being unclassified: ironically, US law:
To attack its targets, the CIA usually requires that its implants communicate with their control programs over the internet. If CIA implants, Command & Control and Listening Post software were classified, then CIA officers could be prosecuted or dismissed for violating rules that prohibit placing classified information onto the Internet. Consequently the CIA has secretly made most of its cyber spying/war code unclassified. The U.S. government is not able to assert copyright either, due to restrictions in the U.S. Constitution. This means that cyber ‘arms’ manufactures and computer hackers can freely “pirate” these ‘weapons’ if they are obtained. The CIA has primarily had to rely on obfuscation to protect its malware secrets…
" I don’t have an opinion about what happened, or didn’t happen, with the wiretapping. But this story did make me laugh when I realized we find ourselves in the following fun situation:
1. President Trump is the world’s biggest liar (according to his foes). And… 2. President Trump now has direct access to more national secrets than any other living human being.
And that means fun.
This wiretapping situation shows us how much fun it will be. Six months ago, if Trump made a hard-to-believe claim about something that is also hard to verify, the country would assume he was lying, incorrect, or negotiating. Now, if he says something hard-to-believe, such as the recent wiretapping claim, you have to wonder if the President knows something you don’t. Because he knows a lot of somethings you don’t..."
The "great" thing about such action is it makes US claims that "Russia did it" or "China did it" unverifiable, if the NSA are hijacking foreign servers used for intelligence operations, or as it now seems the CIA's own in-house mini-NSA* are stealing foreign malware, then why should we believe any proof given by the US? From an outsider's point of view a genuine Russian attack would look just the same as a US attack using Russian systems and software.
* Mini only relative to the NSA, it seems it might already be as large as GCHQ.
Quite. The scale of this is mind boggling. I'm beginning to think that even Alex Jones wasn't a total conspiracy nut now. The stuff pouring out is beyond WTF.
I noticed Wikileaks deliberately mentioned journalists being hacked - that got the MSM's attention in minutes on Twitter. All of a sudden, it's real for them as they ridiculed Trump for saying it.
Alex Jones being the guy who said Sandy Hook shooting was fake and no one actually died?
Look you must have noticed that an awful lot of the links you share get debunked by the various people on this website who can be bothered to read them? Maybe it's time to accept that your conspiracy theory radar isn't all that great?
I'm not sure one can dismiss this with a shrug of the shoulders, despite the lurid stories which surround it. It's pretty well accepted (for example) that Stuxnet was a creation of US intelligence; this is (a lot) more of the same. While it seems that Wikileaks is, for once, being responsible it not naming names, or posting actual malware, no doubt some will argue that's because they've made stuff up.
" I don’t have an opinion about what happened, or didn’t happen, with the wiretapping. But this story did make me laugh when I realized we find ourselves in the following fun situation:
1. President Trump is the world’s biggest liar (according to his foes). And… 2. President Trump now has direct access to more national secrets than any other living human being.
And that means fun.
This wiretapping situation shows us how much fun it will be. Six months ago, if Trump made a hard-to-believe claim about something that is also hard to verify, the country would assume he was lying, incorrect, or negotiating. Now, if he says something hard-to-believe, such as the recent wiretapping claim, you have to wonder if the President knows something you don’t. Because he knows a lot of somethings you don’t..."
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
Was more of a tongue in cheek suggestion,.
As for your tip, I'm trying to work that out.
Re Sion Simon, I have to say that while Andy Street is a very strong candidate, it's still extraordinary that Labour is 7/4 against to win the W Mids mayoralty.
The "great" thing about such action is it makes US claims that "Russia did it" or "China did it" unverifiable, if the NSA are hijacking foreign servers used for intelligence operations, or as it now seems the CIA's own in-house mini-NSA* are stealing foreign malware, then why should we believe any proof given by the US? From an outsider's point of view a genuine Russian attack would look just the same as a US attack using Russian systems and software.
* Mini only relative to the NSA, it seems it might already be as large as GCHQ.
Quite. The scale of this is mind boggling. I'm beginning to think that even Alex Jones wasn't a total conspiracy nut now. The stuff pouring out is beyond WTF.
I noticed Wikileaks deliberately mentioned journalists being hacked - that got the MSM's attention in minutes on Twitter. All of a sudden, it's real for them as they ridiculed Trump for saying it.
Alex Jones being the guy who said Sandy Hook shooting was fake and no one actually died?
Look you must have noticed that an awful lot of the links you share get debunked by the various people on this website who can be bothered to read them? Maybe it's time to accept that your conspiracy theory radar isn't all that great?
I'm not sure one can dismiss this with a shrug of the shoulders, despite the lurid stories which surround it.
Spy agencies spy - I'm not sure what the story is, other than the CIA not being very good at keeping secrets.
Crickey...imagine if a madman got hold of Presidents Trump's twitter account...they could make all sorts of unfounded claims about past and present world leaders.
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
GOD for PM?
Actually I think it might be one of the Hereditaries
But surely they have been "elected" in the hereditary peers elections and so fail David's 2nd point of 3.
There are just a few hereditary peers outwith the House of Lords, in particular some especially fine Scottish nobles. Most of whom are not given to elbowing opponents in the chops, in the face of (squalid political) opportunity .... Most ....
The nation is also well overdue a Scottish peer as Prime Minister - 53 years to be precise.
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
GOD for PM?
Actually I think it might be one of the Hereditaries
But surely they have been "elected" in the hereditary peers elections and so fail David's 2nd point of 3.
Technically, not all the hereditaries were elected. A small number who missed out in 1999 gained entry via a sort of lucky-loser scheme until the by-elections began in 2003. But no, it's not one of them.
The "great" thing about such action is it makes US claims that "Russia did it" or "China did it" unverifiable, if the NSA are hijacking foreign servers used for intelligence operations, or as it now seems the CIA's own in-house mini-NSA* are stealing foreign malware, then why should we believe any proof given by the US? From an outsider's point of view a genuine Russian attack would look just the same as a US attack using Russian systems and software.
* Mini only relative to the NSA, it seems it might already be as large as GCHQ.
Quite. The scale of this is mind boggling. I'm beginning to think that even Alex Jones wasn't a total conspiracy nut now. The stuff pouring out is beyond WTF.
I noticed Wikileaks deliberately mentioned journalists being hacked - that got the MSM's attention in minutes on Twitter. All of a sudden, it's real for them as they ridiculed Trump for saying it.
Alex Jones being the guy who said Sandy Hook shooting was fake and no one actually died?
Look you must have noticed that an awful lot of the links you share get debunked by the various people on this website who can be bothered to read them? Maybe it's time to accept that your conspiracy theory radar isn't all that great?
I'm not sure one can dismiss this with a shrug of the shoulders, despite the lurid stories which surround it.
Spy agencies spy - I'm not sure what the story is, other than the CIA not being very good at keeping secrets.
The story is that the vast amount of hacking tools they have developed have been leaked wholesale. The other element, of course, is what represents an acceptable versus unacceptable level of spying in a democracy. The excuse over the last few years for what is essentially unlimited surveillance (frequently denied by government) has been 'terrorism'. What is notable in this leak is the list of targets: ‘Asset’, ‘Liason [sic] Asset’, ‘System Administrator’, ‘Foreign Information Operations’, ‘Foreign Intelligence Agencies’ and ‘Foreign Government Entities’... Notably absent is any reference to extremists or transnational criminals.
François Asselineau (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃swa asəlino], born September 14, 1957) is a French politician and an Inspector General for finances.
Asselineau was a member of the Rally for France (RPF) and UMP[1][2] before creating his own political party the Popular Republican Union (Union Populaire Républicaine or UPR). His movement promotes France's unilateral withdrawal from the European Union, the Eurozone and NATO.
Considered a "souverainiste",[3] he is also viewed by many observers as a conspiracy theorist.[4][5][6] Arrêt sur images describes him as "a right wing 'énarque', bordering on the far-right".[3]
Asselineau has had a troubled relationship with the media, which he has repeatedly accused of "censorship". In his critique he includes French Wikipedia, which has considered him insufficiently noteworthy to justify a page in the encyclopedia. The activism of his supporters to try and increase media coverage of Asselineau and the UPR has been noted by several observers.[4][7]
Well the new batch of nominations is now out, but the fellows at the Constitutional Council have made it more difficult than it was before to download them all in one go! There are 7781 altogether, and you can only see 100 at a time.
Dupont-Aignan seems to be past the post: around 560 nominations. Juppé has about 240.
The "great" thing about such action is it makes US claims that "Russia did it" or "China did it" unverifiable, if the NSA are hijacking foreign servers used for intelligence operations, or as it now seems the CIA's own in-house mini-NSA* are stealing foreign malware, then why should we believe any proof given by the US? From an outsider's point of view a genuine Russian attack would look just the same as a US attack using Russian systems and software.
* Mini only relative to the NSA, it seems it might already be as large as GCHQ.
.
Alex Jones being the guy who said Sandy Hook shooting was fake and no one actually died?
Look you must have noticed that an awful lot of the links you share get debunked by the various people on this website who can be bothered to read them? Maybe it's time to accept that your conspiracy theory radar isn't all that great?
I'm not sure one can dismiss this with a shrug of the shoulders, despite the lurid stories which surround it.
Spy agencies spy - I'm not sure what the story is, other than the CIA not being very good at keeping secrets.
The story is that the vast amount of hacking tools they have developed have been leaked wholesale. The other element, of course, is what represents an acceptable versus unacceptable level of spying in a democracy. The excuse over the last few years for what is essentially unlimited surveillance (frequently denied by government) has been 'terrorism'. What is notable in this leak is the list of targets: ‘Asset’, ‘Liason [sic] Asset’, ‘System Administrator’, ‘Foreign Information Operations’, ‘Foreign Intelligence Agencies’ and ‘Foreign Government Entities’... Notably absent is any reference to extremists or transnational criminals.
The vast variety of electronic devices out there, their continual updating and patching means any half competent intelligence agency will have to have a large catalogue of hacking tools.
There is no evidence in this release of CIA hacking of US citizens in America; the CIA of course will try and gather intelligence on non-Americans since that is their job.
Really, all the excitement is being generated by the usual Russian useful idiots.
A car bomb is very 1980s PIRA. The new terrorists are less sophisticated.
Also, new terrorists don't care about being killed (in fact for most it is desirable), thus can use far less sophisticated methods to inflict just as much damage.
Jenni Murray isn't my cup of tea, but I'll defend her right to have an opinion
"It’s a curiosity of the 21st century that there is no one quite as bigoted as the person who screams ‘bigot!’ all the time. More often than not, those who casually brand as bigots anyone who has the temerity to hold a different point of view to theirs are the ones behaving with bigotry. Consider the stink over Jenni Murray’s comments on trans women. Murray is being demonised as a bigot, as a daft, obtuse ‘transphobe’, for saying trans women aren’t real women. But it’s her accusers who are the bigots; it’s their petitioning for Murray to be sacked and silenced that is the true bigotry. Murray is a victim of bigotry, not a practitioner of it...
Well the new batch of nominations is now out, but the fellows at the Constitutional Council have made it more difficult than it was before to download them all in one go! There are 7781 altogether, and you can only see 100 at a time.
Dupont-Aignan seems to be past the post: around 560 nominations. Juppé has about 240.
Asselineau has about 490. Le Pen about the same.
Edit: the official totals are out now:
FILLON François 1789 MACRON Emmanuel 1074 HAMON Benoît 1039 DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 559 ARTHAUD Nathalie 557 LE PEN Marine 483 ASSELINEAU François 480 CHEMINADE Jacques 370 MELENCHON Jean-Luc 356 JUPPE Alain 242 LASSALLE Jean 233 POUTOU Philippe 197 YADE Rama 113 JARDIN Alexandre 56 TROADEC Christian 35 GORGES Jean-Pierre 33 TAUZIN Didier 29 MARCHANDISE Charlotte 28 ALLIOT-MARIE Michèle 26 TEMARU Oscar 16 LARROUTUROU Pierre 11 FAUDOT Bastien 10 GUAINO Henri 8 MIGUET Nicolas 6 MUMBACH Paul 6 BAROIN François 5 GUYOT Stéphane 3 NIKONOFF Jacques 3 TONIUTTI Emmanuel 3 JADOT Yannick 2 MARTINEZ Jean-Claude 2 WAECHTER Antoine 2 DELAFON Olivier 1 FESSARD DE FOUCAULT Bertrand 1 REGIS Olivier 1 TRAMBOUZE Bernard 1 VERNIER Michel 1
Tube fares are bloody high -£9 a day...because it included the opportunity to grope! Take that away, there will be nothing left! Might as well use Uber.
A car bomb is very 1980s PIRA. The new terrorists are less sophisticated.
Also, new terrorists don't care about being killed (in fact for most it is desirable), thus can use far less sophisticated methods to inflict just as much damage.
Indeed in our new era they would have been driving the car into the people waiting outside London Bridge station.
Mr. Dixie, reminds me of a campaign (TV ads) against coercion and the like in relationships. Magically, all the victims were female, and all the perpetrators male (it was some time ago, a bit weird, with talking hands and that sort of thing).
Edited extra bit: 'leering' is a bit open to interpretation, no?
Well the new batch of nominations is now out, but the fellows at the Constitutional Council have made it more difficult than it was before to download them all in one go! There are 7781 altogether, and you can only see 100 at a time.
Dupont-Aignan seems to be past the post: around 560 nominations. Juppé has about 240.
Asselineau has about 490. Le Pen about the same.
Asselineau appears to be fishing in the same pond as Le Pen - Anti EU, AntI Euro, Anti Nato
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
GOD for PM?
Actually I think it might be one of the Hereditaries
But surely they have been "elected" in the hereditary peers elections and so fail David's 2nd point of 3.
There are just a few hereditary peers outwith the House of Lords, in particular some especially fine Scottish nobles. Most of whom are not given to elbowing opponents in the chops, in the face of (squalid political) opportunity .... Most ....
The nation is also well overdue a Scottish peer as Prime Minister - 53 years to be precise.
That didn’t turn out well. For the Tories, anyway. Although I suppose someone will argue that with any other leader the Tories would have done worse.
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
GOD for PM?
Actually I think it might be one of the Hereditaries
But surely they have been "elected" in the hereditary peers elections and so fail David's 2nd point of 3.
There are just a few hereditary peers outwith the House of Lords, in particular some especially fine Scottish nobles. Most of whom are not given to elbowing opponents in the chops, in the face of (squalid political) opportunity .... Most ....
The nation is also well overdue a Scottish peer as Prime Minister - 53 years to be precise.
That didn’t turn out well. For the Tories, anyway. Although I suppose someone will argue that with any other leader the Tories would have done worse.
Rab Butler would have led the Tories to a landslide victory in 1964.
If only the Tories had elected their leaders then.
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Surely once we invoke A50 that's it. Whatever parliament thinks or votes for it surely can't take back control of the sovereignty of the other 27 member states to make them not throw us out.
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Surely once we invoke A50 that's it. Whatever parliament thinks or votes for it surely can't take back control of the sovereignty of the other 27 member states to make them not throw us out.
We need a court case the at the CJEU to determine if Article 50 is revocable.
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
GOD for PM?
Actually I think it might be one of the Hereditaries
But surely they have been "elected" in the hereditary peers elections and so fail David's 2nd point of 3.
There are just a few hereditary peers outwith the House of Lords, in particular some especially fine Scottish nobles. Most of whom are not given to elbowing opponents in the chops, in the face of (squalid political) opportunity .... Most ....
The nation is also well overdue a Scottish peer as Prime Minister - 53 years to be precise.
That didn’t turn out well. For the Tories, anyway. Although I suppose someone will argue that with any other leader the Tories would have done worse.
I'm sure if Alec Douglas-Home had remained as Prime Minister in the Lords he would have won the 1964 general election. After all who could deny a charming Scottish peer, whereas a mere knight of the realm ? ....
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Surely once we invoke A50 that's it. Whatever parliament thinks or votes for it surely can't take back control of the sovereignty of the other 27 member states to make them not throw us out.
We need a court case the at the CJEU to determine if Article 50 is revocable.
Surely once we invoke A50 that's it. Whatever parliament thinks or votes for it surely can't take back control of the sovereignty of the other 27 member states to make them not throw us out.
Well quite.
What's more, if that were not the case, then the entire basis of the Supreme Court ruling would collapse, and the Bill being discussed by our noble Lords wouldn't be necessary.
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
GOD for PM?
Actually I think it might be one of the Hereditaries
But surely they have been "elected" in the hereditary peers elections and so fail David's 2nd point of 3.
There are just a few hereditary peers outwith the House of Lords, in particular some especially fine Scottish nobles. Most of whom are not given to elbowing opponents in the chops, in the face of (squalid political) opportunity .... Most ....
The nation is also well overdue a Scottish peer as Prime Minister - 53 years to be precise.
That didn’t turn out well. For the Tories, anyway. Although I suppose someone will argue that with any other leader the Tories would have done worse.
It's unknowable how any other PM would have done. What can't be argued is that the Tories under Home nearly won. That of itself was a considerable achievement given the state the party got itself into in 1962-3.
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Surely once we invoke A50 that's it. Whatever parliament thinks or votes for it surely can't take back control of the sovereignty of the other 27 member states to make them not throw us out.
Well quite.
What's more, if that were not the case, then the entire basis of the Supreme Court ruling would collapse, and the Bill being discussed by our noble Lords wouldn't be necessary.
Of course that said, the EU27 would be gagging to have us stay in. Just wait for the next QMV measure shellacking vs our interests. What would we do...leave?
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Surely once we invoke A50 that's it. Whatever parliament thinks or votes for it surely can't take back control of the sovereignty of the other 27 member states to make them not throw us out.
We need a court case the at the CJEU to determine if Article 50 is revocable.
I have no doubt the LibeDems will have a legal opinion in their back pocket at the next election saying Article 50 can be overturned - so vote for us to stay in the EU! Even if we have left by then (which looks the most likely...)
Mr. Topping, you seem quite gleeful at the prospect of a democratic decision being ignored, and economic harm being done to this country by foreign nations.
I wonder if May will be compelled to take the country to an election, to resolve this matter?
Listening to the Lords debate the majority are for remain and seem to think that they are democratic by saying they accept the referendum to leave - but !!
I'd actually agree with that thinking. Not so sure about SS - he's not even favourite to win his mayoral race .
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
GOD for PM?
Actually I think it might be one of the Hereditaries
But surely they have been "elected" in the hereditary peers elections and so fail David's 2nd point of 3.
There are just a few hereditary peers outwith the House of Lords, in particular some especially fine Scottish nobles. Most of whom are not given to elbowing opponents in the chops, in the face of (squalid political) opportunity .... Most ....
The nation is also well overdue a Scottish peer as Prime Minister - 53 years to be precise.
That didn’t turn out well. For the Tories, anyway. Although I suppose someone will argue that with any other leader the Tories would have done worse.
I'm sure if Alec Douglas-Home had remained as Prime Minister in the Lords he would have won the 1964 general election. After all who could deny a charming Scottish peer, whereas a mere knight of the realm ? ....
My Lord, please don’t deny this poor commoner the memory of the delight he felt at the New Dawn. A feeling not repeated until 1997.
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Surely once we invoke A50 that's it. Whatever parliament thinks or votes for it surely can't take back control of the sovereignty of the other 27 member states to make them not throw us out.
Correct. Parliament can say "we changed our mind", but it's irrelevant. It takes two to keep us in the EU - us and them. If they say we're no longer a member, then what parliament says is irrelevant.
Mr. Topping, you seem quite gleeful at the prospect of a democratic decision being ignored, and economic harm being done to this country by foreign nations.
I wonder if May will be compelled to take the country to an election, to resolve this matter?
If what happens if a pro-Remain majority win a majority?
Lord Lawson appears to be the only one of our noble Lords who can actually read:
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Mr. Topping, you seem quite gleeful at the prospect of a democratic decision being ignored, and economic harm being done to this country by foreign nations.
I wonder if May will be compelled to take the country to an election, to resolve this matter?
If what happens if a pro-Remain majority win a majority?
Mr. Topping, you seem quite gleeful at the prospect of a democratic decision being ignored, and economic harm being done to this country by foreign nations.
I wonder if May will be compelled to take the country to an election, to resolve this matter?
If what happens if a pro-Remain majority win a majority?
I think that is a bit overoptimistic about the Lib Dem chances to be perfectly honest.
Mr. Topping, you seem quite gleeful at the prospect of a democratic decision being ignored, and economic harm being done to this country by foreign nations.
I wonder if May will be compelled to take the country to an election, to resolve this matter?
I'm not gleeful about anything, sunshine. May I refer you back to my views that voting for Brexit was analagous to voting for the Labour Party to lead us. I think it will be a disaster, small d, for the country.
I am allowed to observe the consequences of such a vote, surely?
I'm in good company if Lord Lawson thinks that by far and away the most likely outcome is that there will be no deal.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
Certainly it's looking that way, and the risk is much increased by these debates.
Car crash Brexit is where the deal on offer is such that the government cannot take it and still get re-elected.
I really feel for Mrs May. If we walk away from a deal, and there is then a downturn, then her government will get the blame. If we take a deal and it appears a bad one, then her government will get the blame.
Mr. Topping, you seem quite gleeful at the prospect of a democratic decision being ignored, and economic harm being done to this country by foreign nations.
I wonder if May will be compelled to take the country to an election, to resolve this matter?
If what happens if a pro-Remain majority win a majority?
I think that is a bit overoptimistic about the Lib Dem chances to be perfectly honest.
FPTP can cause all sorts of mayhem.
I suspect we'd see quite a few Labour MPs going rogue, and a few Tories too if Brexit = economic slump/
Mr. Topping, you seem quite gleeful at the prospect of a democratic decision being ignored, and economic harm being done to this country by foreign nations.
I wonder if May will be compelled to take the country to an election, to resolve this matter?
If what happens if a pro-Remain majority win a majority?
I think that is a bit overoptimistic about the Lib Dem chances to be perfectly honest.
It's theoretically possible, but not likely.
It would create a real constitutional crisis if the LDs were to find themselves with a parliamentary majority as the only Remain party on (say) 32% of the vote.
Mr. Eagles, you mean a majority of MPs belong to parties with a Remain pledge in their manifesto?
Then Mr. Smithson would probably suffer a champagne overdose.
However, suppose May does call an election because the Lords decide to be silly buggers. The prime purpose of the election would be resolving this matter. If a Conservative/Leave majority won, then it would be entitled to steamroller the Lords. If a Lib Dem/SNP majority won, they would consider the election annulled.
However (again), the ructions from such a result would be immense. We have a politicised and somewhat bitter political scene today. It would grow much, much worse were the referendum result ignored. It'd also put rocket-boosters under any new Banks/Farage party.
Car crash Brexit is where the deal on offer is such that the government cannot take it and still get re-elected.
I really feel for Mrs May. If we walk away from a deal, and there is then a downturn, then her government will get the blame. If we take a deal and it appears a bad one, then her government will get the blame.
Tough gig.
Yep.
The one certainty in all of this is that voters won't blame themselves.
I'm in good company if Lord Lawson thinks that by far and away the most likely outcome is that there will be no deal.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
Certainly it's looking that way, and the risk is much increased by these debates.
There is no evidence that these debates or even parliament having a vote on the final deal will have any effect on the likelihood or not of reaching an agreement with the EU-27. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that there is some sort of control over what type of deal May signs the country up to.
Mr. Topping, a man observing something whilst repeatedly chortling might easily be mistaken for a gleeful fellow. I apologise. I did not realise you were chortling with sadness.
I'm in good company if Lord Lawson thinks that by far and away the most likely outcome is that there will be no deal.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
Certainly it's looking that way, and the risk is much increased by these debates.
Car crash Brexit is where the deal on offer is such that the government cannot take it and still get re-elected.
I really feel for Mrs May. If we walk away from a deal, and there is then a downturn, then her government will get the blame. If we take a deal and it appears a bad one, then her government will get the blame.
Tube fares are bloody high -£9 a day...because it included the opportunity to grope! Take that away, there will be nothing left! Might as well use Uber.
Mr. Eagles, you mean a majority of MPs belong to parties with a Remain pledge in their manifesto?
Then Mr. Smithson would probably suffer a champagne overdose.
However, suppose May does call an election because the Lords decide to be silly buggers. The prime purpose of the election would be resolving this matter. If a Conservative/Leave majority won, then it would be entitled to steamroller the Lords. If a Lib Dem/SNP majority won, they would consider the election annulled.
However (again), the ructions from such a result would be immense. We have a politicised and somewhat bitter political scene today. It would grow much, much worse were the referendum result ignored. It'd also put rocket-boosters under any new Banks/Farage party.
Such a result would demonstrate the will of the people. A Banks/Farage party would logically accept the result an move on.
Would the invocation of Article 50 even be valid if it were hedged around with conditions?
A decree nisi, so to speak?
I think the rest of the EU would be entitled to, but not obliged, to accept it with the conditions. Or they could reject it as being insufficiently committal. Or they could accept it on the basis that the purported conditions were invalid.
It would be a recipe for confusion. Not recommended.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39182905
Wikileaks
CIA illicitly hoarded 'zero day' attacks, putting at risk industry, government and even Trump's Twitter account https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 https://t.co/miJOPvl7MD
The problem I see is that when the US blames Russia and points to evidence in the software, how does the US get around the issue that they possess that same software and use the same techniques, and have an interest in using that to disguise their own attacks? Basically claims of digital "fingerprints" providing proof of the origin of an attack are worthless now, and should have been treated with more scepticism in the past.
The Russian government is going to make this point very clearly the next time the US points the finger.
Here I am 4 years ago warning Samsung TV microphones could be hacked to spy on you. https://t.co/MDqf1PV8BZ #Vault7
My tip, however, while he is at least in parliament, has never been elected to anything as far as I'm aware, nor is he even a member of a party.
It does seem that professional footballers suffer from appalling spatial awareness, chronic on-field verbosity and a desperate lack of acting talent.
As for your tip, I'm trying to work that out.
Kim Dotcom
Wikileaks just NUKED the CIA!
In honor of JFK!
Wikileaks
CIA hackers celebrated what they saw as the financial largesse of Obama towards them with "Make It Rain" gif
https://t.co/M8LJ03ZoiC https://t.co/zjV5uqQ68P
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/03/07/97001-20170307FILWWW00215-tempete-120000-foyers-sans-electricite.php
To attack its targets, the CIA usually requires that its implants communicate with their control programs over the internet. If CIA implants, Command & Control and Listening Post software were classified, then CIA officers could be prosecuted or dismissed for violating rules that prohibit placing classified information onto the Internet. Consequently the CIA has secretly made most of its cyber spying/war code unclassified. The U.S. government is not able to assert copyright either, due to restrictions in the U.S. Constitution. This means that cyber ‘arms’ manufactures and computer hackers can freely “pirate” these ‘weapons’ if they are obtained. The CIA has primarily had to rely on obfuscation to protect its malware secrets…
While it seems that Wikileaks is, for once, being responsible it not naming names, or posting actual malware, no doubt some will argue that's because they've made stuff up.
The nation is also well overdue a Scottish peer as Prime Minister - 53 years to be precise.
The other element, of course, is what represents an acceptable versus unacceptable level of spying in a democracy. The excuse over the last few years for what is essentially unlimited surveillance (frequently denied by government) has been 'terrorism'. What is notable in this leak is the list of targets:
‘Asset’, ‘Liason [sic] Asset’, ‘System Administrator’, ‘Foreign Information Operations’, ‘Foreign Intelligence Agencies’ and ‘Foreign Government Entities’...
Notably absent is any reference to extremists or transnational criminals.
François Asselineau (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃swa asəlino], born September 14, 1957) is a French politician and an Inspector General for finances.
Asselineau was a member of the Rally for France (RPF) and UMP[1][2] before creating his own political party the Popular Republican Union (Union Populaire Républicaine or UPR). His movement promotes France's unilateral withdrawal from the European Union, the Eurozone and NATO.
Considered a "souverainiste",[3] he is also viewed by many observers as a conspiracy theorist.[4][5][6] Arrêt sur images describes him as "a right wing 'énarque', bordering on the far-right".[3]
Asselineau has had a troubled relationship with the media, which he has repeatedly accused of "censorship". In his critique he includes French Wikipedia, which has considered him insufficiently noteworthy to justify a page in the encyclopedia. The activism of his supporters to try and increase media coverage of Asselineau and the UPR has been noted by several observers.[4][7]
Dupont-Aignan seems to be past the post: around 560 nominations.
Juppé has about 240.
There is no evidence in this release of CIA hacking of US citizens in America; the CIA of course will try and gather intelligence on non-Americans since that is their job.
Really, all the excitement is being generated by the usual Russian useful idiots.
"It’s a curiosity of the 21st century that there is no one quite as bigoted as the person who screams ‘bigot!’ all the time. More often than not, those who casually brand as bigots anyone who has the temerity to hold a different point of view to theirs are the ones behaving with bigotry. Consider the stink over Jenni Murray’s comments on trans women. Murray is being demonised as a bigot, as a daft, obtuse ‘transphobe’, for saying trans women aren’t real women. But it’s her accusers who are the bigots; it’s their petitioning for Murray to be sacked and silenced that is the true bigotry. Murray is a victim of bigotry, not a practitioner of it...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/jenni-murray-isnt-bigot-shes-victim-bigotry/
Le Pen about the same.
Edit: the official totals are out now:
FILLON François 1789
MACRON Emmanuel 1074
HAMON Benoît 1039
DUPONT-AIGNAN Nicolas 559
ARTHAUD Nathalie 557
LE PEN Marine 483
ASSELINEAU François 480
CHEMINADE Jacques 370
MELENCHON Jean-Luc 356
JUPPE Alain 242
LASSALLE Jean 233
POUTOU Philippe 197
YADE Rama 113
JARDIN Alexandre 56
TROADEC Christian 35
GORGES Jean-Pierre 33
TAUZIN Didier 29
MARCHANDISE Charlotte 28
ALLIOT-MARIE Michèle 26
TEMARU Oscar 16
LARROUTUROU Pierre 11
FAUDOT Bastien 10
GUAINO Henri 8
MIGUET Nicolas 6
MUMBACH Paul 6
BAROIN François 5
GUYOT Stéphane 3
NIKONOFF Jacques 3
TONIUTTI Emmanuel 3
JADOT Yannick 2
MARTINEZ Jean-Claude 2
WAECHTER Antoine 2
DELAFON Olivier 1
FESSARD DE FOUCAULT Bertrand 1
REGIS Olivier 1
TRAMBOUZE Bernard 1
VERNIER Michel 1
Mr. Dixie, reminds me of a campaign (TV ads) against coercion and the like in relationships. Magically, all the victims were female, and all the perpetrators male (it was some time ago, a bit weird, with talking hands and that sort of thing).
Edited extra bit: 'leering' is a bit open to interpretation, no?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/07/tories-have-31-pt-lead-over-labour-on-economic-competence-poll-suggests-politics-live
The obfuscation and deceit of the diehard Remainers is quite something.
Good luck to him with that!
Do they even understand the meaning of Art50 and what enabling it does?
If only the Tories had elected their leaders then.
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
What sub-section 4 says is:
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
So we could be left in the utterly bonkers position where as far as the EU is concerned we're leaving, but parliament says we can't.
Completely mad. This is why the Gina Miller legal case was so damaging, and why Theresa May absolutely has to knock all this nonsense on the head (and engineer an election if she can't) - you simply cannot negotiate by parliamentary debate.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/07/tories-have-31-pt-lead-over-labour-on-economic-competence-poll-suggests-politics-live
What's more, if that were not the case, then the entire basis of the Supreme Court ruling would collapse, and the Bill being discussed by our noble Lords wouldn't be necessary.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
*chortle* x 2
Somebody douse Deech.
These issues are being played out in court and parliament; no one could have known what any outcome or any starting position would be.
Or would they prefer to have had the court case, the commons vote and now this parliamentary debate before the June 23rd vote.
I wonder if May will be compelled to take the country to an election, to resolve this matter?
A feeling not repeated until 1997.
Theresa May is the unlucky leader to whom the burden of testing Euroscepticism to destruction has fallen, and test it to destruction she will.
I am allowed to observe the consequences of such a vote, surely?
I really feel for Mrs May. If we walk away from a deal, and there is then a downturn, then her government will get the blame. If we take a deal and it appears a bad one, then her government will get the blame.
Tough gig.
I suspect we'd see quite a few Labour MPs going rogue, and a few Tories too if Brexit = economic slump/
It would create a real constitutional crisis if the LDs were to find themselves with a parliamentary majority as the only Remain party on (say) 32% of the vote.
Then Mr. Smithson would probably suffer a champagne overdose.
However, suppose May does call an election because the Lords decide to be silly buggers. The prime purpose of the election would be resolving this matter. If a Conservative/Leave majority won, then it would be entitled to steamroller the Lords. If a Lib Dem/SNP majority won, they would consider the election annulled.
However (again), the ructions from such a result would be immense. We have a politicised and somewhat bitter political scene today. It would grow much, much worse were the referendum result ignored. It'd also put rocket-boosters under any new Banks/Farage party.
The one certainty in all of this is that voters won't blame themselves.
There is no evidence that these debates or even parliament having a vote on the final deal will have any effect on the likelihood or not of reaching an agreement with the EU-27. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that there is some sort of control over what type of deal May signs the country up to.
Opportunity to grope and be groped.
The new equal opportunities world.
Er............
I think the rest of the EU would be entitled to, but not obliged, to accept it with the conditions. Or they could reject it as being insufficiently committal. Or they could accept it on the basis that the purported conditions were invalid.
It would be a recipe for confusion. Not recommended.