politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The consequences of Amber Rudd’s decision to ignore the courts

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The consequences of Amber Rudd’s decision to ignore the courts

Because of Boris Johnson’s behaviour there’s one story that hasn’t received the attention it deserves and that is the story of Amber Rudd being held in contempt of court, last Thursday The Guardian reported

Read the full story here

Beverley_C

1st

Essexit

Second like Labour

RochdalePioneers

What do Tories care about the Rule of Law?

TOPPING

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.

Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.

The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that

"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."

I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.

It is you who are in need of a reality check.

Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.

Only one person seems to be deluded, here.

There are actually plenty of PB Leavers on here who have said freedom of Movement is not an issue. You just don't want to listen to them because it doesn't suit your warped narrative.

Very very few leavers, yourself and @RochdalePioneers aside (the latter of which I count as an honorary Remainer). Read the posts, Richard.

blueblue

There's the "rule of law" and then there's the "rule of human rights law" - unfortunately, we're currently labouring under the latter.

dixiedean

Whilst this is all true Rudd was held in contempt and the unfortunate bloke is back in the country. So the rule of law has been applied. However, there are dangerous centralising tendencies being displayed by this government which treats conventions and rules as inconveniences to be subverted.

Am I alone in wondering about Ms Rudd? She seems to have risen without trace, bereft of any noteworthy achievement, and with a somewhat chequered business past.

She appears to have cornered the moderate Tory role on the basis of well, not much.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/910491989203877889

dixiedean

blueblue said:

There's the "rule of law" and then there's the "rule of human rights law" - unfortunately, we're currently labouring under the latter.

Which is part of the former.

Richard_Tyndall

TOPPING said:

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.

Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.

The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that

"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."

I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.

It is you who are in need of a reality check.

Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.

Only one person seems to be deluded, here.

There are actually plenty of PB Leavers on here who have said freedom of Movement is not an issue. You just don't want to listen to them because it doesn't suit your warped narrative.

Very very few leavers, yourself and @RochdalePioneers aside (the latter of which I count as an honorary Remainer). Read the posts, Richard.

Robert Smithson, SeanT, Weshowl (I think). Those are without even thinking about it.

blueblue

dixiedean said:

blueblue said:

There's the "rule of law" and then there's the "rule of human rights law" - unfortunately, we're currently labouring under the latter.

Which is part of the former.

Hopefully not forever - that might be the one upside of Brexit.

anothernick

RochdalePioneers said:

What do Tories care about the Rule of Law?

The "will of the people" is the supreme law now. Only saboteurs and traitors could disagree.

I

Beverley_C

TSE said: "This is why I, like many others, have huge concerns about the forthcoming ‘Henry VIII powers’ that the government is planning to use in the forthcoming European Withdrawal Bill, the executive want us to believe they will act honourably, Amber Rudd’s actions indicate the opposite."

It is OK - I was assured here on PB (a few days ago) that there will be NO Henry VIII powers and the govt will not be sidelining Parliament and converting the PM into virtually an El Presidente type figure with sweeping powers. You understand - the sort of role that a self-entitled, underachieving populist might want to pander to their ego....

TOPPING

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.

Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.

The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that

"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."

I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.

It is you who are in need of a reality check.

Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.

Only one person seems to be deluded, here.

There are actually plenty of PB Leavers on here who have said freedom of Movement is not an issue. You just don't want to listen to them because it doesn't suit your warped narrative.

Very very few leavers, yourself and @RochdalePioneers aside (the latter of which I count as an honorary Remainer). Read the posts, Richard.

Robert Smithson, SeanT, Weshowl (I think). Those are without even thinking about it.

Without even thinking about it sums up how you create most of your posts, I grant you.

dixiedean

blueblue said:

dixiedean said:

blueblue said:

There's the "rule of law" and then there's the "rule of human rights law" - unfortunately, we're currently labouring under the latter.

Which is part of the former.

Hopefully not forever - that might be the one upside of Brexit.

You don't like the law. Campaign to change it. Fair enough.
In the meantime it applies to everyone including Cabinet Ministers.

Nigelb

RochdalePioneers said:

What do Tories care about the Rule of Law?

No doubt quite a bit, should strikes break out that fail to meet the tests set by their recentish legislation...

But that's the point - you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey.

archer101au

RochdalePioneers said:

What do Tories care about the Rule of Law?

Well, we care that EU law says that there is no liability after Brexit. Of course, the remainers want to ignore that one and pay up because of 'moral commitments'.

blueblue

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do Tories care about the Rule of Law?

No doubt quite a bit, should strikes break out that fail to meet the tests set by their recentish legislation...

But that's the point - you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey.

Except that's exactly what every government and law enforcement agency does every single day - there are far too many laws and transgressions thereof occurring constantly, and so a decision, implicit or otherwise, it taken as to which laws are enforced in practice.

Richard_Nabavi

Hmm, I rather think that the attacks on Amber Rudd are nonsense. Here's the crucial bit from Lord Falconer's (very critical) account:

It was last Tuesday evening that it crossed the line into unlawfulness. At 9.53pm that night, the lawyers were notified that Mr Justice Morris had granted an injunction ordering the Home Office to take Samim off the flight to Kabul and to return him to London. The Home Office was told of the injunction immediately and had a copy of the order at 10pm that evening. At that point Samim was in transit. The plane had landed at Istanbul, and was due to take off on a connecting flight at 10.30pm for Kabul. The Home Office decided not to remove him from the plane, and Samim was flown on to Kabul.

So, in the half-hour immediately after a copy of the injunction reached the Home Office, it didn't manage to get someone taken off a plane which at the time was in Istanbul.

Now, I don't know what your expectations of Home Office efficiency are, but I'd say that even with the very best will in the world, and even with exemplary cooperation from the Turkish authorities, there wasn't a snow flake's chance in hell of them being to intervene that quickly at ten o'clock at night in an airport in a foreign country.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

I agree with the central premise of the thread.

But, there's something which has been overlooked. Faith in the system is lower than it should be because of recent actions, and inactions. The 'cultural sensitivities' bullshit led to nothing happening for over a decade when nearly one and a half thousand WWC boys and girls were sexually assaulted in Rotherham. There have been more successful prosecutions for 'bacon hate crime' than FGM, despite tens of thousands of the latter being 'detected' in a year alone.

Public sympathy with the judicial system and the police/law generally is, sadly, not at high levels. Partly because of that, and partly because May won't (or can't) fiddle with her Cabinet too much, I think Rudd is safer than she should be.

RochdalePioneers

archer101au said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do Tories care about the Rule of Law?

Well, we care that EU law says that there is no liability after Brexit. Of course, the remainers want to ignore that one and pay up because of 'moral commitments'.

And yet we're going to be able to pull off the simple trick of telling the EU to go whistle for money that even we accept is morally due whilst having them rip up the rules of the club we said weren't being executed properly so that we can have a special deal letting us do what we like with zero cost. And then forge better trade deals with countries like Canada in a fraction of the time with no come back at all from these countries who have just seen us shat all over the EU agreement signed in good faith.

There's "ignorance", and there's hard Brexit ignorance...

Beverley_C

FPT:

archer101au said:

They need to use the existing system. It obviously works with WTO transactions since that is what we already have with the rest of the World, so they just need to increase its capacity. HMRC need a large amount of resources and be told to get on with it. The new system is, I agree, never going to work, but then the civil service are not going to implement Brexit unless they are given an unambiguous order.

The current system is being replaced because it cannot cope. It is over 20 years old. It simply cannot have its capacity increased.

For example, some of HMRC's computer systems date back to 1973 and were designed on ICL kit. These days the old ICL VME software is maintained by Fujitsu and they intend to cut off support for it in 2020.

HMRC has 1,100 people maintaining 23 systems running on legacy kit. Go read the NAO's report about Managing Legacy ICT

Beverley_C

Richard_Nabavi said:

Now, I don't know what your expectations of Home Office efficiency are, but I'd say that even with the very best will in the world, and even with exemplary cooperation from the Turkish authorities, there wasn't a snow flake's chance in hell of them being to intervene that quickly at ten o'clock at night in an airport in a foreign country.

If it was 10pm here, then it was 1am in Istanbul. Time zones etc...

RochdalePioneers

Beverley_C said:

FPT:

archer101au said:

They need to use the existing system. It obviously works with WTO transactions since that is what we already have with the rest of the World, so they just need to increase its capacity. HMRC need a large amount of resources and be told to get on with it. The new system is, I agree, never going to work, but then the civil service are not going to implement Brexit unless they are given an unambiguous order.

The current system is being replaced because it cannot cope. It is over 20 years old. It simply cannot have its capacity increased.

For example, some of HMRC's computer systems date back to 1973 and were designed on ICL kit. These days the old ICL VME software is maintained by Fujitsu and they intend to cut off support for it in 2020.

HMRC has 1,100 people maintaining 23 systems running on legacy kit. Go read the NAO's report about Managing Legacy ICT

Why should anyone do that? We simply leave. On Day 1. Blowing raspberries at the EU. And it will simply work. No problem. ANd be quicker than the current system. Cheaper too.

Richard_Nabavi

Beverley_C said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Now, I don't know what your expectations of Home Office efficiency are, but I'd say that even with the very best will in the world, and even with exemplary cooperation from the Turkish authorities, there wasn't a snow flake's chance in hell of them being to intervene that quickly at ten o'clock at night in an airport in a foreign country.

If it was 10pm here, then it was 1am in Istanbul. Time zones etc...

Indeed so.

Charles

dixiedean said:

Whilst this is all true Rudd was held in contempt and the unfortunate bloke is back in the country. So the rule of law has been applied. However, there are dangerous centralising tendencies being displayed by this government which treats conventions and rules as inconveniences to be subverted.

Am I alone in wondering about Ms Rudd? She seems to have risen without trace, bereft of any noteworthy achievement, and with a somewhat chequered business past.

She appears to have cornered the moderate Tory role on the basis of well, not much.

Do we have any evidence that it was a deliberate decision by Rudd to defy the courts (if so she should be out on her ear)?

It's almost always more likely to be a cock up than a conspiracy.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hmm, I rather think that the attacks on Amber Rudd are nonsense. Here's the crucial bit from Lord Falconer's (very critical) account:

It was last Tuesday evening that it crossed the line into unlawfulness. At 9.53pm that night, the lawyers were notified that Mr Justice Morris had granted an injunction ordering the Home Office to take Samim off the flight to Kabul and to return him to London. The Home Office was told of the injunction immediately and had a copy of the order at 10pm that evening. At that point Samim was in transit. The plane had landed at Istanbul, and was due to take off on a connecting flight at 10.30pm for Kabul. The Home Office decided not to remove him from the plane, and Samim was flown on to Kabul.

So, in the half-hour immediately after a copy of the injunction reached the Home Office, it didn't manage to get someone taken off a plane which at the time was in Istanbul.

Now, I don't know what your expectations of Home Office efficiency are, but I'd say that even with the very best will in the world, and even with exemplary cooperation from the Turkish authorities, there wasn't a snow flake's chance in hell of them being to intervene that quickly at ten o'clock at night in an airport in a foreign country.

With deportations G4S* are in constant contact with the Home Department at every leg of the deportation, especially with one like this that is going through the appellate system for immediate relief.

In Istanbul they would have rung to confirm that it was still legal.

*If it was someone other than G4S the same procedures apply.

RoyalBlue

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.

Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.

The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that

"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."

I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.

It is you who are in need of a reality check.

Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.

Only one person seems to be deluded, here.

There are actually plenty of PB Leavers on here who have said freedom of Movement is not an issue. You just don't want to listen to them because it doesn't suit your warped narrative.

Very very few leavers, yourself and @RochdalePioneers aside (the latter of which I count as an honorary Remainer). Read the posts, Richard.

Robert Smithson, SeanT, Weshowl (I think). Those are without even thinking about it.

Sorry Richard. We agree on a lot, but it is wilful blindness to argue that for most Leave voters, immigration was not a major factor. It was for me, and for lots of the people whose doors I knocked on during the campaign.

People like you and Hannan are the tip of iceberg; highly visible, but 10% of the total. I would not consider a situation where people in 30ish European countries have freedom of movement to Britain forever to be a meaningful implementation of the Brexit vote.

Hard Brexit should be the destination. If the government had planned for that from the very outset, before we triggered Article 50, we would have a chance of being in ready in time. I fear that the government's promises mean that we must end up with hard Brexit, but by not setting this goal at the beginning, and making adequate preparations, we are courting disaster.

Richard_Nabavi

Also, Lord Falconer is a bit economical with the actualité in describing Amber Rudd's response. According to the noble Lord:

Rudd has showed a stunning disregard for the law. When asked about the case on The Andrew Marr Show, there was not a hint of explanation or apology.

According to the BBC:

Ms Rudd told the Andrew Marr Show: "I will make sure we do the right thing."
She added that she took the matter "very seriously" and "I will look carefully at the information and make sure we abide by the law as we always do".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-41298676

So a pledge to abide by the law is a stunning disregard for the law.

The gentleman has been brought back to the UK, in accordance with the court order. I think we can safely file this one under 'unwarranted party-political attacks'.

Andy_Cooke

dixiedean said:

Whilst this is all true Rudd was held in contempt and the unfortunate bloke is back in the country. So the rule of law has been applied.

In this case.
Like the rule of thumb that for every known accident there are ten incidents (which may not be noticed) and for every ten incidents there are a hundred potentially hazardous events (virtually none of which are noticed), I wonder how many such circumstances have occurred without being highlighted by the media and/or resolved according to the rule of law.

williamglenn

RoyalBlue said:

Hard Brexit should be the destination. If the government had planned for that from the very outset, before we triggered Article 50, we would have a chance of being in ready in time. I fear that the government's promises mean that we must end up with hard Brexit, but by not setting this goal at the beginning, and making adequate preparations, we are courting disaster.

The Lancaster House speech was fundamentally dishonest in formally setting out Hard Brexit as the destination, but pretending that by employing brinkmanship, we could blackmail the EU into ensuring that this would be free of meaningful consequences.

blueblue

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

I agree with the central premise of the thread.

But, there's something which has been overlooked. Faith in the system is lower than it should be because of recent actions, and inactions. The 'cultural sensitivities' bullshit led to nothing happening for over a decade when nearly one and a half thousand WWC boys and girls were sexually assaulted in Rotherham. There have been more successful prosecutions for 'bacon hate crime' than FGM, despite tens of thousands of the latter being 'detected' in a year alone.

Public sympathy with the judicial system and the police/law generally is, sadly, not at high levels. Partly because of that, and partly because May won't (or can't) fiddle with her Cabinet too much, I think Rudd is safer than she should be.

Exactly - my faith in the priorities of our justice system is at rock bottom, and that under a Conservative government led by a former Home Secretary.

That's a fucking tragedy.

Richard_Nabavi

TheScreamingEagles said:

In Istanbul they would have rung to confirm that it was still legal.

Perhaps they did, at say 45 minutes before take-off, just before boarding.

RoyalBlue

williamglenn said:

RoyalBlue said:

Hard Brexit should be the destination. If the government had planned for that from the very outset, before we triggered Article 50, we would have a chance of being in ready in time. I fear that the government's promises mean that we must end up with hard Brexit, but by not setting this goal at the beginning, and making adequate preparations, we are courting disaster.

The Lancaster House speech was fundamentally dishonest in formally setting our Hard Brexit as the destination, but pretending that by employing brinkmanship, we could blackmail the EU into ensuring that this would be free of meaningful consequences.

You have a good point there. What many politicians also don't understand is that it is better for business planning purposes to have certainty about something adverse but concrete in the next 2-3 years than total uncertainty for 1.5-2.5 years followed by a positive or negative outcome.

What may happen is that business plans for the worst, but government doesn't, leaving us in a far worse position than if we had planned for Hard Brexit from the beginning.

Unfortunately, this would probably have required a PM committed to Hard Brexit who was prepared to decapitate and replace the leadership of the FCO, who are not institutionally capable of supporting Brexit.

We are making a revolution with conservatives at the top. Sounds like the Provisional Government to me...

Beverley_C

RochdalePioneers said:

Beverley_C said:

FPT:

archer101au said:

They need to use the existing system. It obviously works with WTO transactions since that is what we already have with the rest of the World, so they just need to increase its capacity. HMRC need a large amount of resources and be told to get on with it. The new system is, I agree, never going to work, but then the civil service are not going to implement Brexit unless they are given an unambiguous order.

The current system is being replaced because it cannot cope. It is over 20 years old. It simply cannot have its capacity increased.

For example, some of HMRC's computer systems date back to 1973 and were designed on ICL kit. These days the old ICL VME software is maintained by Fujitsu and they intend to cut off support for it in 2020.

HMRC has 1,100 people maintaining 23 systems running on legacy kit. Go read the NAO's report about Managing Legacy ICT

Why should anyone do that? We simply leave. On Day 1. Blowing raspberries at the EU. And it will simply work. No problem. ANd be quicker than the current system. Cheaper too.

You mean like this?

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10564824.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/MAIN-Theresa-May.jpg

Richard_Tyndall

RoyalBlue said:

Sorry Richard. We agree on a lot, but it is wilful blindness to argue that for most Leave voters, immigration was not a major factor. It was for me, and for lots of the people whose doors I knocked on during the campaign.

People like you and Hannan are the tip of iceberg; highly visible, but 10% of the total. I would not consider a situation where people in 30ish European countries have freedom of movement to Britain forever to be a meaningful implementation of the Brexit vote.

Hard Brexit should be the destination. If the government had planned for that from the very outset, before we triggered Article 50, we would have a chance of being in ready in time. I fear that the government's promises mean that we must end up with hard Brexit, but by not setting this goal at the beginning, and making adequate preparations, we are courting disaster.

I didn't say the majority. I quoted a poll prior to the referendum that showed a pretty even split (42%:45%) of Leavers for and against the EFTA/EEA option. Given how little public opinion has moved over all on the question of Brexit I would not be surprised to find that this is still the split amongst those who voted Leave.

Richard_Tyndall

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.

Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.

The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that

"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."

I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.

It is you who are in need of a reality check.

Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.

Only one person seems to be deluded, here.

There are actually plenty of PB Leavers on here who have said freedom of Movement is not an issue. You just don't want to listen to them because it doesn't suit your warped narrative.

Very very few leavers, yourself and @RochdalePioneers aside (the latter of which I count as an honorary Remainer). Read the posts, Richard.

Robert Smithson, SeanT, Weshowl (I think). Those are without even thinking about it.

Without even thinking about it sums up how you create most of your posts, I grant you.

I base my posts on facts. You base yours on warped ideology and personal bigotry.

JosiasJessop

RoyalBlue said:

williamglenn said:

RoyalBlue said:

Hard Brexit should be the destination. If the government had planned for that from the very outset, before we triggered Article 50, we would have a chance of being in ready in time. I fear that the government's promises mean that we must end up with hard Brexit, but by not setting this goal at the beginning, and making adequate preparations, we are courting disaster.

The Lancaster House speech was fundamentally dishonest in formally setting our Hard Brexit as the destination, but pretending that by employing brinkmanship, we could blackmail the EU into ensuring that this would be free of meaningful consequences.

You have a good point there. What many politicians also don't understand is that it is better for business planning purposes to have certainty about something adverse but concrete in the next 2-3 years than total uncertainty for 1.5-2.5 years followed by a positive or negative outcome.

What may happen is that business plans for the worst, but government doesn't, leaving us in a far worse position than if we had planned for Hard Brexit from the beginning.

(Snip)

That was my view after the referendum. It'd have been better for both business and politics to have the certainty of a hard Brexit over the years of uncertainty that face us now.

I might have been wrong if the government (and especially the leavers within the government) had been competent. But sadly competence seems to be in short supply in politics atm.

RoyalBlue

Richard_Tyndall said:

RoyalBlue said:

Sorry Richard. We agree on a lot, but it is wilful blindness to argue that for most Leave voters, immigration was not a major factor. It was for me, and for lots of the people whose doors I knocked on during the campaign.

People like you and Hannan are the tip of iceberg; highly visible, but 10% of the total. I would not consider a situation where people in 30ish European countries have freedom of movement to Britain forever to be a meaningful implementation of the Brexit vote.

Hard Brexit should be the destination. If the government had planned for that from the very outset, before we triggered Article 50, we would have a chance of being in ready in time. I fear that the government's promises mean that we must end up with hard Brexit, but by not setting this goal at the beginning, and making adequate preparations, we are courting disaster.

I didn't say the majority. I quoted a poll prior to the referendum that showed a pretty even split (42%:45%) of Leavers for and against the EFTA/EEA option. Given how little public opinion has moved over all on the question of Brexit I would not be surprised to find that this is still the split amongst those who voted Leave.

I doubt very much that you would get 42% for EFTA if people knew it meant continuing freedom of movement.

Before anyone pipes up to say we already have the right to deport people after 3 months, it is vastly more expensive to find people and deport them than keeping them from entering the UK in the first place.

anothernick

RoyalBlue said:

williamglenn said:

RoyalBlue said:

Hard Brexit should be the destination. If the government had planned for that from the very outset, before we triggered Article 50, we would have a chance of being in ready in time. I fear that the government's promises mean that we must end up with hard Brexit, but by not setting this goal at the beginning, and making adequate preparations, we are courting disaster.

The Lancaster House speech was fundamentally dishonest in formally setting our Hard Brexit as the destination, but pretending that by employing brinkmanship, we could blackmail the EU into ensuring that this would be free of meaningful consequences.

You have a good point there. What many politicians also don't understand is that it is better for business planning purposes to have certainty about something adverse but concrete in the next 2-3 years than total uncertainty for 1.5-2.5 years followed by a positive or negative outcome.

Yes that is quite correct. Which is why a "transitional period" of unknown length with an unclear final destination will not prevent a slowdown in the economy, reduced investment and continuing departures from the UK by foreign companies. Unless they know that the transitional period will end in continued membership of the single market (which it clearly won't) the threat of a cliff edge will not be lifted and businesses will plan accordingly.

rkrkrk

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hmm, I rather think that the attacks on Amber Rudd are nonsense. Here's the crucial bit from Lord Falconer's (very critical) account:

It was last Tuesday evening that it crossed the line into unlawfulness. At 9.53pm that night, the lawyers were notified that Mr Justice Morris had granted an injunction ordering the Home Office to take Samim off the flight to Kabul and to return him to London. The Home Office was told of the injunction immediately and had a copy of the order at 10pm that evening. At that point Samim was in transit. The plane had landed at Istanbul, and was due to take off on a connecting flight at 10.30pm for Kabul. The Home Office decided not to remove him from the plane, and Samim was flown on to Kabul.

So, in the half-hour immediately after a copy of the injunction reached the Home Office, it didn't manage to get someone taken off a plane which at the time was in Istanbul.

Now, I don't know what your expectations of Home Office efficiency are, but I'd say that even with the very best will in the world, and even with exemplary cooperation from the Turkish authorities, there wasn't a snow flake's chance in hell of them being to intervene that quickly at ten o'clock at night in an airport in a foreign country.

The crucial bit is the next bit where despite having been told three times by a Court to return this guy the Home Office refused and went to an Appeal which they lost.

"Despite the absolute clarity of both orders, the Home Office again refused to obey. A third judge, Mrs Justice Lang, last Thursday, dismissed any attempt to vary the order and ordered the immediate return of Samim. She also made clear that immediate obedience was required.

Still the Home Office thought it knew best. It did nothing, and on Saturday it went to the court of appeal. It said all the orders were wrong. The appeal court gave it short shrift, and finally, the Home Office made arrangements for Samim to be flown back to the UK where he eventually arrived on Sunday night."

Richard_Nabavi

rkrkrk said:

The crucial bit is the next bit where despite having been told three times by a Court to return this guy the Home Office refused and went to an Appeal which they lost.

"Despite the absolute clarity of both orders, the Home Office again refused to obey. A third judge, Mrs Justice Lang, last Thursday, dismissed any attempt to vary the order and ordered the immediate return of Samim. She also made clear that immediate obedience was required.

Still the Home Office thought it knew best. It did nothing, and on Saturday it went to the court of appeal. It said all the orders were wrong. The appeal court gave it short shrift, and finally, the Home Office made arrangements for Samim to be flown back to the UK where he eventually arrived on Sunday night."

So they went back to the high court to ask for a variation of the order, and failed to get it. They then went to appeal, and lost again. They then promptly complied with the order. The guy was back in the UK the next day, and within a few days of the original flight.

It's verging on bonkers to see some big scandal here, frankly.

Philip_Thompson

If Bigzad is now back in the UK then she's not really ignoring the courts is she?

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.

Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.

The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that

"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."

I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.

It is you who are in need of a reality check.

Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.

Only one person seems to be deluded, here.

There are actually plenty of PB Leavers on here who have said freedom of Movement is not an issue. You just don't want to listen to them because it doesn't suit your warped narrative.

Very very few leavers, yourself and @RochdalePioneers aside (the latter of which I count as an honorary Remainer). Read the posts, Richard.

I'm a Leaver and I couldn't care less about Freedom of Movement.

rkrkrk

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

The crucial bit is the next bit where despite having been told three times by a Court to return this guy the Home Office refused and went to an Appeal which they lost.

"Despite the absolute clarity of both orders, the Home Office again refused to obey. A third judge, Mrs Justice Lang, last Thursday, dismissed any attempt to vary the order and ordered the immediate return of Samim. She also made clear that immediate obedience was required.

Still the Home Office thought it knew best. It did nothing, and on Saturday it went to the court of appeal. It said all the orders were wrong. The appeal court gave it short shrift, and finally, the Home Office made arrangements for Samim to be flown back to the UK where he eventually arrived on Sunday night."

So they went back to the high court to ask for a variation of the order, and failed to get it. They then went to appeal, and lost again. They then promptly complied with the order. The guy was back in the UK within a few days.

It's verging on bonkers to see some big scandal here, frankly.

You must be joking.

They are at perfect liberty to appeal - but they had been told that this was not an excuse to avoid bringing him back in the meantime. Nevertheless they ignored the Court.

Government ignoring Court orders three time is a scandal.
By the by putting a man's life in danger...

AnneJGP

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

The crucial bit is the next bit where despite having been told three times by a Court to return this guy the Home Office refused and went to an Appeal which they lost.

"Despite the absolute clarity of both orders, the Home Office again refused to obey. A third judge, Mrs Justice Lang, last Thursday, dismissed any attempt to vary the order and ordered the immediate return of Samim. She also made clear that immediate obedience was required.

Still the Home Office thought it knew best. It did nothing, and on Saturday it went to the court of appeal. It said all the orders were wrong. The appeal court gave it short shrift, and finally, the Home Office made arrangements for Samim to be flown back to the UK where he eventually arrived on Sunday night."

So they went back to the high court to ask for a variation of the order, and failed to get it. They then went to appeal, and lost again. They then promptly complied with the order. The guy was back in the UK the next day, and within a few days of the original flight.

It's verging on bonkers to see some big scandal here, frankly.

Why are they allowed to deport someone whilst there is still a court judgement awaiting?

How can they be certain they will be able to get the person back to this country if the judgement makes it necessary?

What would have happened if the person had been arrested or killed before being returned to this country?

Good afternoon, everyone.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, Miss JGP.

Richard_Nabavi

rkrkrk said:

You must be joking.

They are at perfect liberty to appeal - but they had been told that this was not an excuse to avoid bringing him back in the meantime. Nevertheless they ignored the Court.

Government ignoring Court orders three time is a scandal.
By the by putting a man's life in danger...

They didn't ignore the court. They went back to the court.

If they'd done nothing, and weeks passed with the guy still in Kabul, then you might have a point. Instead they got him back here by Sunday evening. Given the normal bureaucratic delays in doing anything, that's actually pretty good.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

The crucial bit is the next bit where despite having been told three times by a Court to return this guy the Home Office refused and went to an Appeal which they lost.

"Despite the absolute clarity of both orders, the Home Office again refused to obey. A third judge, Mrs Justice Lang, last Thursday, dismissed any attempt to vary the order and ordered the immediate return of Samim. She also made clear that immediate obedience was required.

Still the Home Office thought it knew best. It did nothing, and on Saturday it went to the court of appeal. It said all the orders were wrong. The appeal court gave it short shrift, and finally, the Home Office made arrangements for Samim to be flown back to the UK where he eventually arrived on Sunday night."

So they went back to the high court to ask for a variation of the order, and failed to get it. They then went to appeal, and lost again. They then promptly complied with the order. The guy was back in the UK the next day, and within a few days of the original flight.

It's verging on bonkers to see some big scandal here, frankly.

Richard, in the last twenty years how many Home Secretaries or Secretarties of State have been found in contempt of court ?

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.

Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.

The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that

"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."

I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.

It is you who are in need of a reality check.

Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.

Only one person seems to be deluded, here.

There are actually plenty of PB Leavers on here who have said freedom of Movement is not an issue. You just don't want to listen to them because it doesn't suit your warped narrative.

Very very few leavers, yourself and @RochdalePioneers aside (the latter of which I count as an honorary Remainer). Read the posts, Richard.

I'm a Leaver and I couldn't care less about Freedom of Movement.

You care about droite de suite, right?

Richard_Nabavi

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard, in the last twenty years how many Home Secretaries or Secretarties of State have been found in contempt of court ?

Theresa May, June 2012 for a start. I seem to recall a number of cases under Blair and Brown too. But Amber Rudd hasn't been found in contempt of court, as you know.

AnneJGP

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, Miss JGP.

Thank you, Mr Dancer.

Early on the previous thread you spoke of Mr Corbyn's Britain as a 'smoking ruin'. Whilst I've been hiding behind the sofa I've been coming to terms with that possibility (IMHO, inevitability).

I don't want to derail this thread, but it seems to me that, whilst many things I value would be destroyed, it would at least effect a radical clearance of many things that are past their use-by date. I think the re-building would give us something worthwhile & fit for the future.

TGOHF

News : "Remainer home secretary found in contempt of court"

Blog : "Brexit Fear"

Wibble.

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

News : "Remainer home secretary found in contempt of court"

Blog : "Brexit Fear"

Wibble.

You missed the fears about Corbyn and McDonnell?

Big_G_NorthWales

TGOHF said:

News : "Remainer home secretary found in contempt of court"

Blog : "Brexit Fear"

Wibble.

And this story features high on most peoples agenda. Not even reported on Sky so it can hardly have been anything more than technical as they would be the first to have a go

Philip_Thompson

Andy_Cooke said:

dixiedean said:

Whilst this is all true Rudd was held in contempt and the unfortunate bloke is back in the country. So the rule of law has been applied.

In this case.
Like the rule of thumb that for every known accident there are ten incidents (which may not be noticed) and for every ten incidents there are a hundred potentially hazardous events (virtually none of which are noticed), I wonder how many such circumstances have occurred without being highlighted by the media and/or resolved according to the rule of law.

I doubt any given how many people and papers like the Guardian are obsessed with finding any stick like this to beat the government up with.

Morris_Dancer

Miss JGP, I fear that's a level of optimism akin to being glad that the attic doesn't need cleaning any more because the house has been hit by a tactical nuclear warhead.

A bad Labour leader would be one thing. Corbyn's taken the side of this country's enemies on numerous occasions and praised the economic approach of Venezuela. He's soft on drone-striking terrorists and happy to march with Stalin banners, a unilateralist and a damned fool.

Hopefully we won't have to find out whether I'm unnecessarily pessimistic or you're overly optimistic.

Historically, some leaders are bad enough to massively compromise a nation for decades, or centuries (the Angeli dynasty stand out).

Richard_Nabavi

Philip_Thompson said:

I doubt any given how many people and papers like the Guardian are obsessed with finding any stick like this to beat the government up with.

To be fair, the Guardian is a great source of info on these things, such as this bit, from the Thursday in between the original deportation and the Sunday flight back to the UK:

Although there are several flights a day from Kabul to European destinations, there is a further problem about returning Bigzad to the UK because the emergency travel document he was issued with – an EU letter – cannot be used to return him to the UK. Negotiations are ongoing with the Afghan foreign ministry and the British embassy about issuing a new travel document but to date no document has been issued to him.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/14/home-secretary-ignores-court-order-sends-asylum-seeker-kabul-samim-bigzad

So, not quite as simple as Amber Rudd signing a memo and the guy instantly being on a flight back.

Morris_Dancer

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Philip_Thompson

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

The crucial bit is the next bit where despite having been told three times by a Court to return this guy the Home Office refused and went to an Appeal which they lost.

"Despite the absolute clarity of both orders, the Home Office again refused to obey. A third judge, Mrs Justice Lang, last Thursday, dismissed any attempt to vary the order and ordered the immediate return of Samim. She also made clear that immediate obedience was required.

Still the Home Office thought it knew best. It did nothing, and on Saturday it went to the court of appeal. It said all the orders were wrong. The appeal court gave it short shrift, and finally, the Home Office made arrangements for Samim to be flown back to the UK where he eventually arrived on Sunday night."

So they went back to the high court to ask for a variation of the order, and failed to get it. They then went to appeal, and lost again. They then promptly complied with the order. The guy was back in the UK the next day, and within a few days of the original flight.

It's verging on bonkers to see some big scandal here, frankly.

Richard, in the last twenty years how many Home Secretaries or Secretarties of State have been found in contempt of court ?

One other Home Secretary in the last 20 years. One other Home Secretary just outside that window (whom the court ruled could be found in contempt, prior to that the understanding was that the Home Secretary could not personally be found in comntempt).

anothernick

Morris_Dancer said:

Historically, some leaders are bad enough to massively compromise a nation for decades, or centuries (the Angeli dynasty stand out).

David Cameron?

Scott_P

@christopherhope: NEW Boris Johnson to hold six hour summit at 30,000 feet with Theresa May tonight on flight back from New York City. Developing.

Big_G_NorthWales

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Well good way to make Catalonia more determined to leave and cause a schism in Spain

dixiedean

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Whilst this is all true Rudd was held in contempt and the unfortunate bloke is back in the country. So the rule of law has been applied. However, there are dangerous centralising tendencies being displayed by this government which treats conventions and rules as inconveniences to be subverted.

Am I alone in wondering about Ms Rudd? She seems to have risen without trace, bereft of any noteworthy achievement, and with a somewhat chequered business past.

She appears to have cornered the moderate Tory role on the basis of well, not much.

Do we have any evidence that it was a deliberate decision by Rudd to defy the courts (if so she should be out on her ear)?

It's almost always more likely to be a cock up than a conspiracy.

I agree with you on that.
My querying of Ms. Rudd. Is based on lack of positive achievements rather than any malign intent.

Big_G_NorthWales

anothernick said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Historically, some leaders are bad enough to massively compromise a nation for decades, or centuries (the Angeli dynasty stand out).

David Cameron?

17 million agreed with him

Big_G_NorthWales

Sky breaking news - Boris to fly back to the UK with Theresa on her flight rather than on a commercial flight

Love in anybody !!!

anothernick

Big_G_NorthWales said:

anothernick said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Historically, some leaders are bad enough to massively compromise a nation for decades, or centuries (the Angeli dynasty stand out).

David Cameron?

17 million agreed with him

Indeed. But he left his country and party in crises which could yet be terminal for both of them. No other PM in modern history has left such an appalling mess behind them.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. NorthWales, one wonders if he'll go for a walk and very sadly accidentally throw himself off the plane...

dixiedean

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Well good way to make Catalonia more determined to leave and cause a schism in Spain

Seems like Madrid is doing all in its power to pour aircraft fuel on the flames. Given the history this can not be good.

Big_G_NorthWales

anothernick said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

anothernick said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Historically, some leaders are bad enough to massively compromise a nation for decades, or centuries (the Angeli dynasty stand out).

David Cameron?

17 million agreed with him

Indeed. But he left his country and party in crises which could yet be terminal for both of them. No other PM in modern history has left such an appalling mess behind them.

Bit over the top there. The labour party is as divided as the conserative party but the conservatives will unite for two reasons. Corbyn and their desire to be in Office

SouthamObserver

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Well good way to make Catalonia more determined to leave and cause a schism in Spain

Seems like Madrid is doing all in its power to pour aircraft fuel on the flames. Given the history this can not be good.

It's two nationalisms - Spanish and Catalan - facing off. Neither is covering itself in glory. But nationalism thrives on this kind of thing.

Big_G_NorthWales

SouthamObserver said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Well good way to make Catalonia more determined to leave and cause a schism in Spain

Seems like Madrid is doing all in its power to pour aircraft fuel on the flames. Given the history this can not be good.

It's two nationalisms - Spanish and Catalan - facing off. Neither is covering itself in glory. But nationalism thrives on this kind of thing.

Due to fly out of Barcelona on the 21st October - might be interesting

SouthamObserver

The Home Office is totally unfit for purpose. Its handling of immigration issues is scandalous. Someone needs to get a grip. Fat chance.

dixiedean

SouthamObserver said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Well good way to make Catalonia more determined to leave and cause a schism in Spain

Seems like Madrid is doing all in its power to pour aircraft fuel on the flames. Given the history this can not be good.

It's two nationalisms - Spanish and Catalan - facing off. Neither is covering itself in glory. But nationalism thrives on this kind of thing.

Wonder how the Scots would have voted had Westminster behaved similarly. It all seems rather unnecessary...but that's Nationalism for you.

williamglenn

Scott_P said:

@christopherhope: NEW Boris Johnson to hold six hour summit at 30,000 feet with Theresa May tonight on flight back from New York City. Developing.

Let's hope she's not planning to give him the Bigeard treatment.

philiph

SouthamObserver said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Well good way to make Catalonia more determined to leave and cause a schism in Spain

Seems like Madrid is doing all in its power to pour aircraft fuel on the flames. Given the history this can not be good.

It's two nationalisms - Spanish and Catalan - facing off. Neither is covering itself in glory. But nationalism thrives on this kind of thing.

Nationalism is one of the most resilient things Humans have created. It thrives at a deeper level than 'facing off' in the Human.
Irish, Welsh and Scottish to name three locally which exhibit various degrees of fanatical support. Basque, Catalan, Croatan, Serb, Albanian, Boznian, it is a long list of Nations where Nationals are willing to fight and die for. Ukraine, Polish, the list is almost endless. Nationalities will not be quashed.

Artificial countries or Empires can not permanently or peacefully in the long term impose upon Nations. Ask the Greeks, Chinese, Romans, Egyptians, Brits, Russians, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portugese or many more.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. H, jein. The Pechenegs had a sense of national identity. Didn't stop them being wiped out. It's also possible for identities to transmute over time (the Gauls ended up really liking Rome).

Big_G_NorthWales

dixiedean said:

SouthamObserver said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Well good way to make Catalonia more determined to leave and cause a schism in Spain

Seems like Madrid is doing all in its power to pour aircraft fuel on the flames. Given the history this can not be good.

It's two nationalisms - Spanish and Catalan - facing off. Neither is covering itself in glory. But nationalism thrives on this kind of thing.

Wonder how the Scots would have voted had Westminster behaved similarly. It all seems rather unnecessary...but that's Nationalism for you.

Well confiscating the ballot papers may have made it difficult but increased the likelihood of divorce by 100%

philiph

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. H, jein. The Pechenegs had a sense of national identity. Didn't stop them being wiped out. It's also possible for identities to transmute over time (the Gauls ended up really liking Rome).

Well I did say people would die for the nationality, and getting wiped out is taking that to one of the extremes, I would suggest.

I'll have to watch Asterix again to establish the relationship with Rome.

TGOHF

Spanish constitution is pretty clear - has to be a nationwide referendum.

However Spanish gov have played this crudely - should have just told voters to ignore ballot then every non voter could be counted as a remainer.

Won't impact support for a split.

Would be funny to see it happen and then Barca get punted out of La Ligua .

Benpointer

TGOHF said:

Spanish constitution is pretty clear - has to be a nationwide referendum.

However Spanish gov have played this crudely - should have just told voters to ignore ballot then every non voter could be counted as a remainer.

Won't impact support for a split.

Would be funny to see it happen and then Barca get punted out of La Ligua .

"every non voter could be counted as a remainer" mmmm... that's an interesting idea

SouthamObserver

TGOHF said:

Spanish constitution is pretty clear - has to be a nationwide referendum.

However Spanish gov have played this crudely - should have just told voters to ignore ballot then every non voter could be counted as a remainer.

Won't impact support for a split.

Would be funny to see it happen and then Barca get punted out of La Ligua .

They have told voters to ignore the ballot. None of the anti-independent parties recognise it and none are campaigning.

RoyalBlue

TGOHF said:

Spanish constitution is pretty clear - has to be a nationwide referendum.

However Spanish gov have played this crudely - should have just told voters to ignore ballot then every non voter could be counted as a remainer.

Won't impact support for a split.

Would be funny to see it happen and then Barca get punted out of La Ligua .

The constitution bears the mark of the old regime:

La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas.

Indissoluble unity and AND indivisible in a single sentence. ¡Una, grande y libre!

Philip_Thompson

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF said:

Spanish constitution is pretty clear - has to be a nationwide referendum.

However Spanish gov have played this crudely - should have just told voters to ignore ballot then every non voter could be counted as a remainer.

Won't impact support for a split.

Would be funny to see it happen and then Barca get punted out of La Ligua .

They have told voters to ignore the ballot. None of the anti-independent parties recognise it and none are campaigning.

You missed a key word. They should have just told voters to ignore the ballot.

They haven't, they've arrested those involved, sent armed Police to raid newspapers etc, etc, etc

That's changed things. Now non-voters could be intimidated by the central government rather than conscientious abstainers.

Big_G_NorthWales

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF said:

Spanish constitution is pretty clear - has to be a nationwide referendum.

However Spanish gov have played this crudely - should have just told voters to ignore ballot then every non voter could be counted as a remainer.

Won't impact support for a split.

Would be funny to see it happen and then Barca get punted out of La Ligua .

They have told voters to ignore the ballot. None of the anti-independent parties recognise it and none are campaigning.

Bit more than that - they have confiscated the ballot papers

SouthamObserver

dixiedean said:

SouthamObserver said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Catalonia:
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/910494384688435200

Well good way to make Catalonia more determined to leave and cause a schism in Spain

Seems like Madrid is doing all in its power to pour aircraft fuel on the flames. Given the history this can not be good.

It's two nationalisms - Spanish and Catalan - facing off. Neither is covering itself in glory. But nationalism thrives on this kind of thing.

Wonder how the Scots would have voted had Westminster behaved similarly. It all seems rather unnecessary...but that's Nationalism for you.

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

rcs1000

archer101au said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do Tories care about the Rule of Law?

Well, we care that EU law says that there is no liability after Brexit. Of course, the remainers want to ignore that one and pay up because of 'moral commitments'.

From a technical point of view, that doesn't make sense. Or rather, if Scotland were to leave the UK, you could make the case that "UK law says there's no liability after Scexit", in that it is utterly silent on the issue.

What the Treaties say is that we negotiate "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" which is where the EU is failing to meet its obligations.

TGOHF

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF said:

Spanish constitution is pretty clear - has to be a nationwide referendum.

However Spanish gov have played this crudely - should have just told voters to ignore ballot then every non voter could be counted as a remainer.

Won't impact support for a split.

Would be funny to see it happen and then Barca get punted out of La Ligua .

They have told voters to ignore the ballot. None of the anti-independent parties recognise it and none are campaigning.

Ok - so why bother "SEIZING !" ballot papers - seems a bit OTT.

Just put out there that anyone organising or telling for an ballot using public facilities will face charges later.

Richard_Nabavi

SouthamObserver said:

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

Isn't it a bit hard to hold a referendum if the heavies have impounded the ballot papers, though?

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

What the Treaties say is that we negotiate "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" which is where the EU is failing to meet its obligations.

This is another area where Theresa May laid a trap for herself. She opened negotiations by saying we will leave the single market and customs union. The EU is negotiating on that basis.

williamglenn

RoyalBlue said:

TGOHF said:

Spanish constitution is pretty clear - has to be a nationwide referendum.

However Spanish gov have played this crudely - should have just told voters to ignore ballot then every non voter could be counted as a remainer.

Won't impact support for a split.

Would be funny to see it happen and then Barca get punted out of La Ligua .

The constitution bears the mark of the old regime:

La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas.

Indissoluble unity and AND indivisible in a single sentence. ¡Una, grande y libre!

And also guaranteeing autonomy AND solidarity in a single sentence. Impressive.

TGOHF

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

Isn't it a bit hard to hold a referendum if the heavies have impounded the ballot papers, though?

A pity no bookmaker is taking bets on the result - I have a hunch "leave" might sneak over the line..

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

Isn't it a bit hard to hold a referendum if the heavies have impounded the ballot papers, though?

A pity no bookmaker is taking bets on the result - I have a hunch "leave" might sneak over the line..

Ladbrokes are.

TGOHF

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

Isn't it a bit hard to hold a referendum if the heavies have impounded the ballot papers, though?

A pity no bookmaker is taking bets on the result - I have a hunch "leave" might sneak over the line..

Ladbrokes are.

1/16 : Free money ?

TheScreamingEagles

No to Independence 7/1

Yes to Independence 1/16

https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/international/international/catalan-independence-referendum-2017/225398521/

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

Isn't it a bit hard to hold a referendum if the heavies have impounded the ballot papers, though?

A pity no bookmaker is taking bets on the result - I have a hunch "leave" might sneak over the line..

Ladbrokes are.

1/16 : Free money ?

I'm not qualified enough to speak about Catalan/Spanish matters.

Southam's your man on this.

Benpointer

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

Isn't it a bit hard to hold a referendum if the heavies have impounded the ballot papers, though?

A pity no bookmaker is taking bets on the result - I have a hunch "leave" might sneak over the line..

Leave might not sneak over the line if there are no ballot papers though.

Morris_Dancer

On Catalan, got on at 1.42. Not sure the vote will happen, though.

TGOHF

Benpointer said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

Isn't it a bit hard to hold a referendum if the heavies have impounded the ballot papers, though?

A pity no bookmaker is taking bets on the result - I have a hunch "leave" might sneak over the line..

Leave might not sneak over the line if there are no ballot papers though.

Ladbrokes might void and refund the maximum bet allowable of £5 if the ballot is not official.

Philip_Thompson

TGOHF said:

Benpointer said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Most Catalans want what the Basques have home rule and the right to collect all taxes, sending some of them to Madrid to pay for a limited number of agreed functions. This was basically what they were given by the previous socialist government in Madrid, but the PP objected, challenged it in court and plenty of the law got struck down. That was a gift to the Catalan separatists, who had never been in power in Barcelona before that. Over the last few years, with them in control in Barcelona and the PP in power in Madrid, things have just escalated. As I have said on here before, I can see it turning violent after the referendum result is announced and nothing changes.

Isn't it a bit hard to hold a referendum if the heavies have impounded the ballot papers, though?

A pity no bookmaker is taking bets on the result - I have a hunch "leave" might sneak over the line..

Leave might not sneak over the line if there are no ballot papers though.

Ladbrokes might void and refund the maximum bet allowable of £5 if the ballot is not official.

The ballot is already unofficial but I fail to see how it can be completed without ballot papers or voting booths etc

williamglenn

Blair aide predicts Brexit won't happen:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/tony-blair/news/89127/excl-former-key-adviser-tony-blair-says

Asked whether the Government will manage to agree a deal with the EU before 30 March 2019, Mr Murphy said: "I don't think Brexit will happen. I don't think the Government has the votes."