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.
The Uk parliament has no control on what the EU 27 will be prepared to accept. Therefore it can have no control over the agreement.
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.
Lord Hill has intervened admirably, given that he was a clear Remainer and a personal "victim" of Brexit:
Lord Hill, the Conservative former European commissioner, tells Hogg than anything that complicates the Brexit negotiation will not help.
And he says that having a third party, like parliament, involved in a negotiation might help if the third party is pushing for a tougher solution. That could help the government get what it wants. But in this case, if parliament has the final say, EU leaders will see it as pushing for a softer solution, and so that would undermine the government’s position.
The absence of a clause requiring there to be a vote in parliament on the outcome does not mean that there is no requirement.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
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 am chortling at the absurdity of the situation we find ourselves in, Morris.
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.
The absence of a clause requiring there to be a vote in parliament on the outcome does not mean that there is no requirement.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
Except if the notification of Article 50 didn't cause Brexit to occur automatically there would be no need for Parliament to be involved with the notification of Article 50. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
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.
I really feel for Mrs May. ....Tough gig.
Alternatively May could have taken the time since she was elected Tory leader and PM to prepare the country for the likely problems of Brexit and achieve some level of consensus and support for the path ahead.
Instead she has spent several months spouting nonsense about red, white and blue Brexit, Brexit meaning Brexit, and attacking people as citizens of nowhere.
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.
The voters in that instance will want as PM the people that warned them that this would happen.
Step forward the modern day Winston Churchill that is George Osborne.
The absence of a clause requiring there to be a vote in parliament on the outcome does not mean that there is no requirement.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
Except if the notification of Article 50 didn't cause Brexit to occur automatically there would be no need for Parliament to be involved with the notification of Article 50. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
The Supreme Court did not rule on this. Both sides in the Miller case took the irrevocability of Article 50 as an assumption, for their own reasons, but they were not correct.
Lord Kerr is spouting rubbish again. Whatever your opinion of Brexit with no deal is irrelevant; the referendum result means that staying in at the conclusion of the process is not an option.
Otherwise, we might as well scrap elections. Why not scrap Parliament entirely, and leave the governance of this country to our betters in Brussels?
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.
Which is impossible, because there won't be any other deal on the table. You can only control something if you have some choice, but it will be too late for that. Our EU friends aren't going to offer us half a dozen different deals and ask us to choose one of them; they are going (we hope) to hammer out one deal and one deal only, agreed late at night, by the normal diplomatic process of bribrery, blackmail and bluster.
Lord Hill, as quoted by @Tissue_Price, is admirably sensible on this.
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges 4m4 minutes ago More I've just asked HMRC whether salaries paid under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 are regarded as salaries or benefits by HMRC.
the referendum result means that staying in at the conclusion of the process is not an option.
Otherwise, we might as well scrap elections.
These two sentences are in direct contradiction. If the result of one election cannot be overturned by a subsequent election, then there would be no need for elections.
June 23rd did not bind the British people to hold a certain opinion on Brexit for as long as it takes.
This is a brilliant article So in sum, this really does feel like a battle for control over America, and in some respects it is. But it is also a kind of phony war, in which there can be no real winner except chaos. In the meantime, both sides will enjoy their illusions that they are “doing something” to restore control.
@BBCPeterH: BREAKING - Secret recordings of Surrey Council's "gentleman's agreement" with government over the 15% council tax rise on @BBCSurrey shortly pic.twitter.com/YxItMCkncG
The absence of a clause requiring there to be a vote in parliament on the outcome does not mean that there is no requirement.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
Except if the notification of Article 50 didn't cause Brexit to occur automatically there would be no need for Parliament to be involved with the notification of Article 50. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
That judgement is saying that whatever the state of play is at the end of the two years following A50 (deal, no deal), it would mean a change in status for UK citizens of sufficient import that parliament would need to authorise it. If they did not authorise it under either circumstance (deal or no deal) then the notice of A50 would be deemed to have lapsed.
The absence of a clause requiring there to be a vote in parliament on the outcome does not mean that there is no requirement.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
Except if the notification of Article 50 didn't cause Brexit to occur automatically there would be no need for Parliament to be involved with the notification of Article 50. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
The Supreme Court did not rule on this. Both sides in the Miller case took the irrevocability of Article 50 as an assumption, for their own reasons, but they were not correct.
The Supreme Court ruled on the basis of Article 50 being irrevocable. If it isn't irrevocable then there's no need for Parliament to be involved.
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges 4m4 minutes ago More I've just asked HMRC whether salaries paid under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 are regarded as salaries or benefits by HMRC.
According to Topping HMRC won't be able to tell him that. The clue is in the question though.
The absence of a clause requiring there to be a vote in parliament on the outcome does not mean that there is no requirement.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
Except if the notification of Article 50 didn't cause Brexit to occur automatically there would be no need for Parliament to be involved with the notification of Article 50. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
I am not aware of any definitive opinion by the Supreme Court or otherwise which categorically states the A50 cannot be revoked. In fact, I seem to recall [ I think Tusk ] someone saying it is Brexit or no Brexit or something like that.
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.
The voters in that instance will want as PM the people that warned them that this would happen.
Step forward the modern day Winston Churchill that is George Osborne.
Brexit = Appeasement.
You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my short struggle to secure a Brexit deal has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different that I could have done and that would have been more successful.
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges 4m4 minutes ago More I've just asked HMRC whether salaries paid under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 are regarded as salaries or benefits by HMRC.
According to Topping HMRC won't be able to tell him that. The clue is in the question though.
My point was that the rules are there for all to see. Surely you cannot be saying that in the thousands of pages of the tax code it is not somewhere spelled out. My point is that given that the rules are somewhere spelled out, it is not HMRC's job to interpret those rules.
the referendum result means that staying in at the conclusion of the process is not an option.
Otherwise, we might as well scrap elections.
These two sentences are in direct contradiction. If the result of one election cannot be overturned by a subsequent election, then there would be no need for elections.
June 23rd did not bind the British people to hold a certain opinion on Brexit for as long as it takes.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle before 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
The absence of a clause requiring there to be a vote in parliament on the outcome does not mean that there is no requirement.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
Except if the notification of Article 50 didn't cause Brexit to occur automatically there would be no need for Parliament to be involved with the notification of Article 50. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
I am not aware of any definitive opinion by the Supreme Court or otherwise which categorically states the A50 cannot be revoked. In fact, I seem to recall [ I think Tusk ] someone saying it is Brexit or no Brexit or something like that.
The Supreme Court ruled that since Article 50 changes rights by itself (because Brexit automatically occurs 2 years later) that Parliament must invoke it. Once Parliament has invoked it, the 2 year rule is still there - after 2 years we are out, that is the EU's rules that we ratified in the cover of darkness in Lisbon.
When people say we "voted for Parliamentary Sovereignty" last June, are they really trying to say that people who voted to Leave were voting for Parliament to have the right to keep us in?! As though they would be ok with that, obviously
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
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 have no idea whether these rumours are true.
What I do know is that my opinion is not influenced and should not be influenced one iota when someone wbo thinks Sandy Hook shooting is fake/similar levels of stupidity tells me something is true. These people should have as much credibility as if isaid... I had a dream that xyz happened.
Just because I dream something doesn't make it true or false
@faisalislam: Green Peer Jenny Jones not happy w/ aspects of Brexit plan not meaning what she meant by "taking back control" when campaigning for it pic.twitter.com/WmtPxQ8Rna
When people say we "voted for Parliamentary Sovereignty" last June, are they really trying to say that people who voted to Leave were voting for Parliament to have the right to keep us in?! As though they would be ok with that, obviously
Some of the "they" would not, clearly - those Eurosceptics who think that the EU is the whore of Babylon would be having aneurysms. It seems entirely possible to me that if the leaving process went pear-shaped that some of the "they" might be only too happy if Parliament decided that a rethink was necessary.
Though I think the matter is theoretical. Once the Article 50 notice is given, Britain's barrel is going over Niagara.
Lord Kerr is spouting rubbish again. Whatever your opinion of Brexit with no deal is irrelevant; the referendum result means that staying in at the conclusion of the process is not an option.
Otherwise, we might as well scrap elections. Why not scrap Parliament entirely, and leave the governance of this country to our betters in Brussels?
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges 4m4 minutes ago More I've just asked HMRC whether salaries paid under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 are regarded as salaries or benefits by HMRC.
According to Topping HMRC won't be able to tell him that. The clue is in the question though.
My point was that the rules are there for all to see. Surely you cannot be saying that in the thousands of pages of the tax code it is not somewhere spelled out. My point is that given that the rules are somewhere spelled out, it is not HMRC's job to interpret those rules.
My main beef with intrastat is that the government 'expects' it to correspond to boxes 8 and 9 generally on the VAT return, which is frankly laughable given the rules they set out.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
The absence of a clause requiring there to be a vote in parliament on the outcome does not mean that there is no requirement.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
Except if the notification of Article 50 didn't cause Brexit to occur automatically there would be no need for Parliament to be involved with the notification of Article 50. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
I am not aware of any definitive opinion by the Supreme Court or otherwise which categorically states the A50 cannot be revoked. In fact, I seem to recall [ I think Tusk ] someone saying it is Brexit or no Brexit or something like that.
IIRC both parties in the case agreed A50 was irrevocable, so it didn't really come up, although of course their view is not definitive. In fact, I think one of the dissenting judges may have even commented that there was debate on that point, despite the agreement between the parties in this particular case.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
The LDs might campaign on it, but get elected? Yeah, that's another story. But it'd be legitimate to campaign on an issue of somehow revoking A50. What would be tricky is if it couldn't be - could you then claim a mandate for rejoining?
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
The Conservatives. Having been reduced to an electorate consisting of just England and Wales there won't be much Tory appetite left for leaving the EU.
(((Dan Hodges))) Retweeted Tom HarrisVerified account @MrTCHarris 38s38 seconds ago More @DPJHodges Ministers are paid a salary in addition to their MP's salary, and is recorded as such by HMRC.
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.
The Uk parliament has no control on what the EU 27 will be prepared to accept. Therefore it can have no control over the agreement.
The Uk has control over the final agreement in the sense that what we offer to negotiate on will affect what the EU negotiates on. If we said yes to free movement then we will get different concessions from the EU than if we said no.
When people say we "voted for Parliamentary Sovereignty" last June, are they really trying to say that people who voted to Leave were voting for Parliament to have the right to keep us in?! As though they would be ok with that, obviously
Some of the "they" would not, clearly - those Eurosceptics who think that the EU is the whore of Babylon would be having aneurysms. It seems entirely possible to me that if the leaving process went pear-shaped that some of the "they" might be only too happy if Parliament decided that a rethink was necessary.
I would, admittedly. But as you say, realistically if that happens it is too late.
(((Dan Hodges))) Retweeted Tom HarrisVerified account @MrTCHarris 38s38 seconds ago More @DPJHodges Ministers are paid a salary in addition to their MP's salary, and is recorded as such by HMRC.
Yes, but how is a €50,000 loan declared for tax purposes
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
The LDs might campaign on it, but get elected? Yeah, that's another story. But it'd be legitimate to campaign on an issue of somehow revoking A50. What would be tricky is if it couldn't be - could you then claim a mandate for rejoining?
If it came to that and the EU still wanted us... I'd imagine we'd all tell the lawyers to get stuffed/rewrite the law and just forget about it.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
The Conservatives. Having been reduced to an electorate consisting of just England and Wales there won't be much Tory appetite left for leaving the EU.
When a bad decision (if such it proves to be) leads to a bad outcome, quite often people double down rather than acknowledge fault or error. See Labour and Corbyn.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition under a non Corbyn leader. It's not that unthinkable.
When people say we "voted for Parliamentary Sovereignty" last June, are they really trying to say that people who voted to Leave were voting for Parliament to have the right to keep us in?! As though they would be ok with that, obviously
Some of the "they" would not, clearly - those Eurosceptics who think that the EU is the whore of Babylon would be having aneurysms. It seems entirely possible to me that if the leaving process went pear-shaped that some of the "they" might be only too happy if Parliament decided that a rethink was necessary.
Though I think the matter is theoretical. Once the Article 50 notice is given, Britain's barrel is going over Niagara.
Some PB interpretations of the vote bring this to mind!
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition under a non Corbyn leader. It's not that unthinkable.
Yes it is completely unthinkable - unless Labour can be made to understand that coalition means other parties working WITH Labour, not FOR them. See previous attempts to get crossparty talks going,
Horribly off topic, but any help would be appreciated from clever people that understand google / internet stuff.
When I put my company name into google.co.uk the result shows my company, but with a load of Japanese attached to it. Most off putting for clicks.
See here www.roses.co.uk/home/583-query.html
or go to google and search 'Harkness Roses'
I've never seen this before, any help and advice would be welcome.
Thanks, and sorry to be off topic.
A Google search of "my website shows up in Japanese on Google" returns a few links that suggest your website has been hacked and somehow linked to Japanese content
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
The LDs might campaign on it, but get elected? Yeah, that's another story. But it'd be legitimate to campaign on an issue of somehow revoking A50. What would be tricky is if it couldn't be - could you then claim a mandate for rejoining?
If it came to that and the EU still wanted us... I'd imagine we'd all tell the lawyers to get stuffed/rewrite the law and just forget about it.
In reality, I think that once A50 is invoked, the die is cast. The EU 27 won't want us back.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
The Conservatives. Having been reduced to an electorate consisting of just England and Wales there won't be much Tory appetite left for leaving the EU.
So if the UK consists solely of those countries which voted to leave, we won't leave?
Maybe you should give this site a break, for your own sanity.
Horribly off topic, but any help would be appreciated from clever people that understand google / internet stuff.
When I put my company name into google.co.uk the result shows my company, but with a load of Japanese attached to it. Most off putting for clicks.
See here www.roses.co.uk/home/583-query.html
or go to google and search 'Harkness Roses'
I've never seen this before, any help and advice would be welcome.
Thanks, and sorry to be off topic.
A Google search of "my website shows up in Japanese on Google" returns a few links that suggest your website has been hacked and somehow linked to Japanese content
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
The Conservatives. Having been reduced to an electorate consisting of just England and Wales there won't be much Tory appetite left for leaving the EU.
So if the UK consists solely of those countries which voted to leave, we won't leave?
Maybe you should give this site a break, for your own sanity.
Who knows? Maybe after a couple of years of mass starvation, civil war, and 60% unemployment, outside the EU, we'll be begging to adopt the Euro.
the referendum result means that staying in at the conclusion of the process is not an option.
Otherwise, we might as well scrap elections.
These two sentences are in direct contradiction. If the result of one election cannot be overturned by a subsequent election, then there would be no need for elections.
June 23rd did not bind the British people to hold a certain opinion on Brexit for as long as it takes.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle before 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
There won't be a campaign to rejoin for a few years but if May crashes out on WTO terms then there will be a campaign to rejoin the single market via EFTA and it will be very strong indeed,.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition under a non Corbyn leader. It's not that unthinkable.
It doesn't exude thinkability. Even if it happened, the consequences would be anyone's guess. We would certainly need the Supreme Court to tell us what they are.
Incidentally, we changed the HoL judicial committee into the Supreme Court in the nick of time; it would be seriously head-doing-in if we had to distinguish between what the House of Lords had said about Brexit, and what the House of Lords had said about it.
Mr. F, hmm. Now I'm thinking of hedging a bit more, after I'd just gotten comfortable.
The agony of choice.
To me, I just find it hard to see, with the way pretty much every election has gone recently, that someone like Macron - pretty much the poster boy for liberal "globalism" - could win. I do wonder how much of his current support is just people liking the thought of a fresh face, but which might start crumbling once his actual policies start getting more publicity.
" 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 is so true"?????? No it isn't. There may be a few deluded people thinking the president knows something. The rest of us are pretty sure he doesn't give a flying fart whether what he says has any basis in fact and he is purely aiming to get some sort of advantage for himself.
Horribly off topic, but any help would be appreciated from clever people that understand google / internet stuff.
When I put my company name into google.co.uk the result shows my company, but with a load of Japanese attached to it. Most off putting for clicks.
See here www.roses.co.uk/home/583-query.html
or go to google and search 'Harkness Roses'
I've never seen this before, any help and advice would be welcome.
Thanks, and sorry to be off topic.
A Google search of "my website shows up in Japanese on Google" returns a few links that suggest your website has been hacked and somehow linked to Japanese content
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 have no idea whether these rumours are true.
What I do know is that my opinion is not influenced and should not be influenced one iota when someone wbo thinks Sandy Hook shooting is fake/similar levels of stupidity tells me something is true. These people should have as much credibility as if isaid... I had a dream that xyz happened.
Just because I dream something doesn't make it true or false
Agreed - but that in no way invalidates the CIA story. And yes, Plato's indiscriminate linking is unfortunate, but it doesn't invalidate everything she posts - though it does seriously inhibit the desire to click on any of her linked stories.
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 have no idea whether these rumours are true.
What I do know is that my opinion is not influenced and should not be influenced one iota when someone wbo thinks Sandy Hook shooting is fake/similar levels of stupidity tells me something is true. These people should have as much credibility as if isaid... I had a dream that xyz happened.
Just because I dream something doesn't make it true or false
Agreed - but that in no way invalidates the CIA story. And yes, Plato's indiscriminate linking is unfortunate, but it doesn't invalidate everything she posts -
Horribly off topic, but any help would be appreciated from clever people that understand google / internet stuff.
When I put my company name into google.co.uk the result shows my company, but with a load of Japanese attached to it. Most off putting for clicks.
See here www.roses.co.uk/home/583-query.html
or go to google and search 'Harkness Roses'
I've never seen this before, any help and advice would be welcome.
Thanks, and sorry to be off topic.
A Google search of "my website shows up in Japanese on Google" returns a few links that suggest your website has been hacked and somehow linked to Japanese content
Lord Bridges (Govt spokesman): "Govt cannot possibly accept amendment".
I think it's very unlikely - but IF Con rebels stop Govt overturning in Commons then that must mean GE right now.
I don't really see this. The government would just have to accept the amendment. All the same arguments in the thread header would apply if they tried to use it as a pretext for an election.
Lord Bridges (Govt spokesman): "Govt cannot possibly accept amendment".
I think it's very unlikely - but IF Con rebels stop Govt overturning in Commons then that must mean GE right now.
I don't really see this. The government would just have to accept the amendment. All the same arguments in the thread header would apply if they tried to use it as a pretext for an election.
No. Theresa May would say she can't negotiate with her hands tied behind her back. She would have to go for a GE.
But it's very unlikely because I can't see there being 26 MPs who will rebel when it comes to the crunch.
Lord Bridges (Govt spokesman): "Govt cannot possibly accept amendment".
I think it's very unlikely - but IF Con rebels stop Govt overturning in Commons then that must mean GE right now.
I don't really see this. The government would just have to accept the amendment. All the same arguments in the thread header would apply if they tried to use it as a pretext for an election.
If the PM decides she wants this amendment less than she wants an early election then point 1 could be reversed.
As already said by a number of people including yours truly points 2 and 3 are very weak and easily overturned. The critical thing is that the PM [currently] doesn't want one.
Lord Bridges (Govt spokesman): "Govt cannot possibly accept amendment".
I think it's very unlikely - but IF Con rebels stop Govt overturning in Commons then that must mean GE right now.
I don't really see this. The government would just have to accept the amendment. All the same arguments in the thread header would apply if they tried to use it as a pretext for an election.
No. Theresa May would say she can't negotiate with her hands tied behind her back. She would have to go for a GE.
But it's very unlikely because I can't see there being 26 MPs who will rebel when it comes to the crunch.
So I've only been vaguely following this Wiggins and British cycling stuff the last few months, but is it the case that, whoops, turns out cycling is still pretty bloody dodgy?
Lord Bridges (Govt spokesman): "Govt cannot possibly accept amendment".
I think it's very unlikely - but IF Con rebels stop Govt overturning in Commons then that must mean GE right now.
I don't really see this. The government would just have to accept the amendment. All the same arguments in the thread header would apply if they tried to use it as a pretext for an election.
No. Theresa May would say she can't negotiate with her hands tied behind her back. She would have to go for a GE.
But it's very unlikely because I can't see there being 26 MPs who will rebel when it comes to the crunch.
Comments
Lord Hill, the Conservative former European commissioner, tells Hogg than anything that complicates the Brexit negotiation will not help.
And he says that having a third party, like parliament, involved in a negotiation might help if the third party is pushing for a tougher solution. That could help the government get what it wants. But in this case, if parliament has the final say, EU leaders will see it as pushing for a softer solution, and so that would undermine the government’s position.
If you go by the Three Knights opinion, constitutional authority for Brexit cannot be given without an Act to give effect to the terms of withdrawal, which cannot be known at this stage, hence any enactment of Article 50, under any circumstances, is necessarily conditional.
https://www.bindmans.com/uploads/files/documents/Final_Article_50_Opinion_10.2.17.pdf
Add 4 Speakers + 4 tellers + 4 SF gives 566.
So 83 MPs absent - seems a very high number.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/2017/03/07/35003-20170307ARTFIG00244-fillon-n-a-pas-declare-un-pret-de-50000-euros-obtenu-en-2013.php
Instead she has spent several months spouting nonsense about red, white and blue Brexit, Brexit meaning Brexit, and attacking people as citizens of nowhere.
Step forward the modern day Winston Churchill that is George Osborne.
Brexit = Appeasement.
presenter - let's go over to sky's expert to find out more about this story of CIA hacking tools
"Expert" - I don't understand the material in the documents.
Otherwise, we might as well scrap elections. Why not scrap Parliament entirely, and leave the governance of this country to our betters in Brussels?
Alexis Sanchez 6 March 2017
Lord Hill, as quoted by @Tissue_Price, is admirably sensible on this.
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges 4m4 minutes ago
More
I've just asked HMRC whether salaries paid under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 are regarded as salaries or benefits by HMRC.
June 23rd did not bind the British people to hold a certain opinion on Brexit for as long as it takes.
So in sum, this really does feel like a battle for control over America, and in some respects it is. But it is also a kind of phony war, in which there can be no real winner except chaos. In the meantime, both sides will enjoy their illusions that they are “doing something” to restore control.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/03/06/americas-placebo-president/
What makes it especially good is if you replace Trump with Brexit, it is still completely applicable
@BBCPeterH: BREAKING - Secret recordings of Surrey Council's "gentleman's agreement" with government over the 15% council tax rise on @BBCSurrey shortly pic.twitter.com/YxItMCkncG
a Brexit deal has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything
different that I could have done and that would have been more successful.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
Australia skittled
Steve Smith in trouble for cheating
Arsenal exiting CL deja vu
Hmm.. could be worse.
What I do know is that my opinion is not influenced and should not be influenced one iota when someone wbo thinks Sandy Hook shooting is fake/similar levels of stupidity tells me something is true. These people should have as much credibility as if isaid...
I had a dream that xyz happened.
Just because I dream something doesn't make it true or false
https://twitter.com/brianspanner1/status/746488316510482433
Though I think the matter is theoretical. Once the Article 50 notice is given, Britain's barrel is going over Niagara.
How a cashed up, expanding #CIA built its "own #NSA" https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 #Vault7 https://t.co/1pE0BEj0Gc
When I put my company name into google.co.uk the result shows my company, but with a load of Japanese attached to it. Most off putting for clicks.
See here www.roses.co.uk/home/583-query.html
or go to google and search 'Harkness Roses'
I've never seen this before, any help and advice would be welcome.
Thanks, and sorry to be off topic.
He is a classic.
Tom HarrisVerified account @MrTCHarris 38s38 seconds ago
More
@DPJHodges Ministers are paid a salary in addition to their MP's salary, and is recorded as such by HMRC.
It's not that unthinkable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVtGHv8pY_U
First round: Le Pen 26% (-1), Macron 25.5% (+1.5), Fillon 19% (NC), Hamon 13.5% (+1), Mélenchon 12% (-0.5)
Second round Macron 60%, Le Pen 40%
A note of caution: more certainty to vote for Le Pen (79%) and Fillon (73%) than for Macron (45%).
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/03/07/97001-20170307FILWWW00254-sondage-macron-talonne-le-pen.php
e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37625793/why-is-google-showing-these-japanese-characters-on-search-results
Maybe you should give this site a break, for your own sanity.
The agony of choice.
Incidentally, we changed the HoL judicial committee into the Supreme Court in the nick of time; it would be seriously head-doing-in if we had to distinguish between what the House of Lords had said about Brexit, and what the House of Lords had said about it.
But that certainty to vote disparity is substantial.
However, if it is Macron-Le Pen in round two, his odds will surely shorten even more.
So... the smarter bet for me, if I make one, might be to back Fillon for round two, or (if possible) lay Macron.
To the markets!
And yes, Plato's indiscriminate linking is unfortunate, but it doesn't invalidate everything she posts - though it does seriously inhibit the desire to click on any of her linked stories.
Hamon and Fillon
To be honest, the 6 looks much better to me (all these odds Ladbrokes).
https://twitter.com/bbcpeterh/status/839174757299994626
https://twitter.com/bbcpeterh/status/839175958104059906
Last week she told MPs that she had accurately declared all conflicts of interest, and that she had also helped to write the Bank's code of conduct.
However, she failed to declare that her brother worked at Barclays, one of the banks she will be overseeing.
Bank deputy Charlotte Hogg admits breaching guidelines
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-3919
That's quite an oversight....Can't quite make excuse of trying to remember if you met somebody months ago or not.
I think it's very unlikely - but IF Con MP rebels stop Govt overturning in Commons then that must mean a GE right now.
Approx 26 Con MP rebels needed to trigger a GE next week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39199829
But it's very unlikely because I can't see there being 26 MPs who will rebel when it comes to the crunch.
As already said by a number of people including yours truly points 2 and 3 are very weak and easily overturned. The critical thing is that the PM [currently] doesn't want one.
Would the PLP vote en masse for something that would lead to a General Election in which they would be led by Jeremy Corbyn?
Coincidence?
Has to wait for Budget debate.