Brexit couldn’t happen without Corbyn. In fact, alongside Farage, history may regard him as Brexit’s best friend.
But that’s not my question. My question is, why is Brexit going a bit tits when leading Brexiters have been in charge?
We were assured it would be the easiest negotiation in history.
They have not been in charge. They were put in place by May as a buffer whilst she has called the shots at every turn. Just look at what happened when Davis started to try and actually make stand on anything and the way he has been overruled and sidelined by May.
We have a Remainer in charge who never understood Brexit in the first place and has made a hash of things so far just like she has every other job she has ever done.
She is using the Leave supporting ministers in exactly the way she used Amber Rudd to cover her own ineptitude.
Ah, here we go - the stampede of Brexiters thrashing around to blame everyone but themselves for this fiasco is well underway.
It is clear that a hard Brexit is not possible and remaining in a customs union of some form will win the day through the HOC demonstrating to everyone that the softer remainers will have won.
I have reservations about the fall out from all of this and you can see on here some Brexiteer's in a panic but I see no alternative
Ah - just make a statement such as 'hard Brexit is not possible' and then you get a free pass to ignore a democratic vote. How easy it is!
Of course, nobody can explain why Brexit cannot be carried out based on the promises made in both parties manifestos. As I have pointed out many times, the HOC can pass all the motions they like, but they cannot force the executive to negotiate a CU agreement if they don't want to.
If I was an anti Customs Union leaver I'd be worried by that. Sounds for all the world as if the government has made its decision and Liam and his trade deals will be thrown out with the trash.
Don't be too sure.
There's just as much chance it will be Theresa being thrown out with the trash... Things are getting very, very serious for her now I think.
Of course, any hard Brexiter is not going to have the numbers in the Commons. Unless they are planning a Nixon goes to China moment.
I assume the plan will have to be a quick leadership change (probably to Boris) and then if the Commons and Lords continues to act up another general election....
I've felt for some time the chances of another general election in 2018 are growing stronger.
Just does not work that way. Boris will not get my vote and it is not certain he would be put in the final two
Time is so short this will have to be a quick swap by the Parliamentary Prty again IMO (followed by a general election)
Not going to happen. No way will the Tories risk another GE this side of 2022.
I disagree with a new leader , they could take the honeymoon period and win a majority.
If I was an anti Customs Union leaver I'd be worried by that. Sounds for all the world as if the government has made its decision and Liam and his trade deals will be thrown out with the trash.
Don't be too sure.
There's just as much chance it will be Theresa being thrown out with the trash... Things are getting very, very serious for her now I think.
Of course, any hard Brexiter is not going to have the numbers in the Commons. Unless they are planning a Nixon goes to China moment.
I assume the plan will have to be a quick leadership change (probably to Boris) and then if the Commons and Lords continues to act up another general election....
I've felt for some time the chances of another general election in 2018 are growing stronger.
Just does not work that way. Boris will not get my vote and it is not certain he would be put in the final two
Time is so short this will have to be a quick swap by the Parliamentary Party again IMO (followed by a general election)
What on earth are you talking about. In the first instance 48 letters need to be received and TM can just stand her ground and challenge the party to vote against her. If that happened a leadership race would take place with hustings and then the two candidates would be put to the membership. This process would not be quick and then following that you would have an impotent new PM, still having to follow the HOC maths
When Cameron quit the last leadership contest was wrapped up in a month?
Just think. After her election near-loss, Theresa May could have put the Customs Union/Single Market question to the electorate in a referendum. Nobody could have contested the outcome.
If I was an anti Customs Union leaver I'd be worried by that. Sounds for all the world as if the government has made its decision and Liam and his trade deals will be thrown out with the trash.
Don't be too sure.
There's just as much chance it will be Theresa being thrown out with the trash... Things are getting very, very serious for her now I think.
Of course, any hard Brexiter is not going to have the numbers in the Commons. Unless they are planning a Nixon goes to China moment.
I assume the plan will have to be a quick leadership change (probably to Boris) and then if the Commons and Lords continues to act up another general election....
I've felt for some time the chances of another general election in 2018 are growing stronger.
How would a general election help? As we know from 2017, it weakened the Brexit mandate, not strengthened it.
If you want a new mandate for Brexit, a second referendum is the only way to go.
The timescale for a GE is six weeks, that for a referendum mich longer, in order for the enabling bill to pass all stages.
A GE is therefore more likely than a third in/out referendum.
Just think. After her election near-loss, Theresa May could have put the Customs Union/Single Market question to the electorate in a referendum. Nobody could have contested the outcome.
If only she was a leader, rather than a manager.
That could well be her plan, with Remain on the other side of the ballot.
If I was an anti Customs Union leaver I'd be worried by that. Sounds for all the world as if the government has made its decision and Liam and his trade deals will be thrown out with the trash.
Don't be too sure.
There's just as much chance it will be Theresa being thrown out with the trash... Things are getting very, very serious for her now I think.
If TM goes so does Brexit -
To be honest , if she goes there is more chance of a meaningful Brexit and not a BINO.
But less chance of a, successful Brexit. Brexit will always be a downgrade on what we have but I think Leavers need Brexit to be at least tolerable.
If I was an anti Customs Union leaver I'd be worried by that. Sounds for all the world as if the government has made its decision and Liam and his trade deals will be thrown out with the trash.
Don't be too sure.
There's just as much chance it will be Theresa being thrown out with the trash... Things are getting very, very serious for her now I think.
Of course, any hard Brexiter is not going to have the numbers in the Commons. Unless they are planning a Nixon goes to China moment.
I assume the plan will have to be a quick leadership change (probably to Boris) and then if the Commons and Lords continues to act up another general election....
I've felt for some time the chances of another general election in 2018 are growing stronger.
Just does not work that way. Boris will not get my vote and it is not certain he would be put in the final two
Time is so short this will have to be a quick swap by the Parliamentary Party again IMO (followed by a general election)
That is not going to happen. A coronation is only possible if the other candidate in the final two withdrawds late on, as Leadsom did. I could not see a soft Brexiteer doing that, so hardline Brexiteers would need both gold and silver medals in the earlier rounds.
Brexit couldn’t happen without Corbyn. In fact, alongside Farage, history may regard him as Brexit’s best friend.
But that’s not my question. My question is, why is Brexit going a bit tits when leading Brexiters have been in charge?
We were assured it would be the easiest negotiation in history.
They have not been in charge. They were put in place by May as a buffer whilst she has called the shots at every turn. Just look at what happened when Davis started to try and actually make stand on anything and the way he has been overruled and sidelined by May.
We have a Remainer in charge who never understood Brexit in the first place and has made a hash of things so far just like she has every other job she has ever done.
She is using the Leave supporting ministers in exactly the way she used Amber Rudd to cover her own ineptitude.
Ah, here we go - the stampede of Brexiters thrashing around to blame everyone but themselves for this fiasco is well underway.
It is clear that a hard Brexit is not possible and remaining in a customs union of some form will win the day through the HOC demonstrating to everyone that the softer remainers will have won.
I have reservations about the fall out from all of this and you can see on here some Brexiteer's in a panic but I see no alternative
Ah - just make a statement such as 'hard Brexit is not possible' and then you get a free pass to ignore a democratic vote. How easy it is!
Of course, nobody can explain why Brexit cannot be carried out based on the promises made in both parties manifestos. As I have pointed out many times, the HOC can pass all the motions they like, but they cannot force the executive to negotiate a CU agreement if they don't want to.
Yes they can
You will have to do better than that.
The UK Parliament cannot direct the executive to do anything. They can pass or withhold laws, that is all.
If they tell the executive to negotiate a CU agreement, what happens if the executive refuses? The answer is that Parliament has the right to pass a motion of no-confidence in the executive and put in place an alternative executive in who they do have confidence.
Since Parliament will not no-confidence the executive, the Government can ignore such a direction.
Parliament can refuse to pass into law the Brexit bill if they choose (but we all know they would have to pass it in the end). They can refuse to pass an Act that enshrines the Withdrawal Agreement into law (in which case we exit with no deal). But Parliament cannot negotiate treaties. End of story.
Brexit couldn’t happen without Corbyn. In fact, alongside Farage, history may regard him as Brexit’s best friend.
But that’s not my question. My question is, why is Brexit going a bit tits when leading Brexiters have been in charge?
We were assured it would be the easiest negotiation in history.
They have not been in charge. They were put in place by May as a buffer whilst she has called the shots at every turn. Just look at what happened when Davis started to try and actually make stand on anything and the way he has been overruled and sidelined by May.
We have a Remainer in charge who never understood Brexit in the first place and has made a hash of things so far just like she has every other job she has ever done.
She is using the Leave supporting ministers in exactly the way she used Amber Rudd to cover her own ineptitude.
Ah, here we go - the stampede of Brexiters thrashing around to blame everyone but themselves for this fiasco is well underway.
It is clear that a hard Brexit is not possible and remaining in a customs union of some form will win the day through the HOC demonstrating to everyone that the softer remainers will have won.
I have reservations about the fall out from all of this and you can see on here some Brexiteer's in a panic but I see no alternative
Ah - just make a statement such as 'hard Brexit is not possible' and then you get a free pass to ignore a democratic vote. How easy it is!
Of course, nobody can explain why Brexit cannot be carried out based on the promises made in both parties manifestos. As I have pointed out many times, the HOC can pass all the motions they like, but they cannot force the executive to negotiate a CU agreement if they don't want to.
Yes they can
Actually no they can't. Not without actually removing the Executive.
Wrong as I believe it to be, treaty negotiation is still part of the Royal Prerogative and legally May can indeed ignore Parliament on this. I think it would probably be political suicide to do so but constitutionally she has the right.
Good to see PB is functioning normally again... I logged on a couple of days ago and there was nothing about Brexit at all!
The site is better when there is something going on. Now that the cabinet has had its mini reshuffle and the locals are out the way, it is non stop brexit...
We need a by-election or something to get the focus back onto betting.
Good to see PB is functioning normally again... I logged on a couple of days ago and there was nothing about Brexit at all!
The site is better when there is something going on. Now that the cabinet has had its mini reshuffle and the locals are out the way, it is non stop brexit...
We need a by-election or something to get the focus back onto betting.
Not much to bet on at present. Italian GE sounds to be a re-run, and US midterms in the fall.
Good to see PB is functioning normally again... I logged on a couple of days ago and there was nothing about Brexit at all!
The site is better when there is something going on. Now that the cabinet has had its mini reshuffle and the locals are out the way, it is non stop brexit...
We need a by-election or something to get the focus back onto betting.
Not much to bet on at present. Italian GE sounds to be a re-run, and US midterms in the fall.
According to some we are going to have a GE this year. Betting opportunities !!!!
Good to see PB is functioning normally again... I logged on a couple of days ago and there was nothing about Brexit at all!
The site is better when there is something going on. Now that the cabinet has had its mini reshuffle and the locals are out the way, it is non stop brexit...
We need a by-election or something to get the focus back onto betting.
Not much to bet on at present. Italian GE sounds to be a re-run, and US midterms in the fall.
Good to see PB is functioning normally again... I logged on a couple of days ago and there was nothing about Brexit at all!
The site is better when there is something going on. Now that the cabinet has had its mini reshuffle and the locals are out the way, it is non stop brexit...
We need a by-election or something to get the focus back onto betting.
Not much to bet on at present. Italian GE sounds to be a re-run, and US midterms in the fall.
Leicester to beat Spurs ? Chelsea get 4 th place.
Leicester couldn't beat the Oadby Owls reserves at present. Bet the house on Spurs.
No 10's trade plan IS crazy. Boris Johnson's problem is he doesn't have a better plan.
It is called MaxFac. Have you been able to come up with any reason why it would not work, other than that your beloved EU says so?
If the EU, beloved by me or not, says No it won't work. Actually the EU isn't quite rejecting MaxFac on my understanding. They are saying it isn't an acceptable backstop - the default arrangement in the absence of a negotiated settlement - specifically on the Irish border question. The negotiated settlement might include MaxFac as part of the solution, providing the overall solution achieves the same effect as the backstop, as it relates to the Irish border. MaxFac for big traders won't be complete solution for a border where 80% of trade is carried out by small traders. Secondly, the Irish border doesn't define the entirety of our relationship with the EU. MaxFac could be deployed where it doesn't impact the Irish border.
Good to see PB is functioning normally again... I logged on a couple of days ago and there was nothing about Brexit at all!
The site is better when there is something going on. Now that the cabinet has had its mini reshuffle and the locals are out the way, it is non stop brexit...
We need a by-election or something to get the focus back onto betting.
Not much to bet on at present. Italian GE sounds to be a re-run, and US midterms in the fall.
Leicester to beat Spurs ? Chelsea get 4 th place.
Leicester couldn't beat the Oadby Owls reserves at present. Bet the house on Spurs.
Brexit couldn’t happen without Corbyn. In fact, alongside Farage, history may regard him as Brexit’s best friend.
But that’s not my question. My question is, why is Brexit going a bit tits when leading Brexiters have been in charge?
We were assured it would be the easiest negotiation in history.
They have not been in charge. They were put in place by May as a buffer whilst she has called the shots at every turn. Just look at what happened when Davis started to try and actually make stand on anything and the way he has been overruled and sidelined by May.
We have a Remainer in charge who never understood Brexit in the first place and has made a hash of things so far just like she has every other job she has ever done.
She is using the Leave supporting ministers in exactly the way she used Amber Rudd to cover her own ineptitude.
Ah, here we go - the stampede of Brexiters thrashing around to blame everyone but themselves for this fiasco is well underway.
It is clear that a hard Brexit is not possible and remaining in a customs union of some form will win the day through the HOC demonstrating to everyone that the softer remainers will have won.
I have reservations about the fall out from all of this and you can see on here some Brexiteer's in a panic but I see no alternative
Ah - just make a statement such as 'hard Brexit is not possible' and then you get a free pass to ignore a democratic vote. How easy it is!
Of course, nobody can explain why Brexit cannot be carried out based on the promises made in both parties manifestos. As I have pointed out many times, the HOC can pass all the motions they like, but they cannot force the executive to negotiate a CU agreement if they don't want to.
Yes they can
Actually no they can't. Not without actually removing the Executive.
Wrong as I believe it to be, treaty negotiation is still part of the Royal Prerogative and legally May can indeed ignore Parliament on this. I think it would probably be political suicide to do so but constitutionally she has the right.
Parliament can veto the ratification of a treaty though.
Brexit couldn’t happen without Corbyn. In fact, alongside Farage, history may regard him as Brexit’s best friend.
But that’s not my question. My question is, why is Brexit going a bit tits when leading Brexiters have been in charge?
We were assured it would be the easiest negotiation in history.
They have not been in charge. They were put in place by May as a buffer whilst she has called the shots at every turn. Just look at what happened when Davis started to try and actually make stand on anything and the way he has been overruled and sidelined by May.
We have a Remainer in charge who never understood Brexit in the first place and has made a hash of things so far just like she has every other job she has ever done.
She is using the Leave supporting ministers in exactly the way she used Amber Rudd to cover her own ineptitude.
Ah, here we go - the stampede of Brexiters thrashing around to blame everyone but themselves for this fiasco is well underway.
It is clear that a hard Brexit is not possible and remaining in a customs union of some form will win the day through the HOC demonstrating to everyone that the softer remainers will have won.
I have reservations about the fall out from all of this and you can see on here some Brexiteer's in a panic but I see no alternative
Ah - just make a statement such as 'hard Brexit is not possible' and then you get a free pass to ignore a democratic vote. How easy it is!
Of course, nobody can explain why Brexit cannot be carried out based on the promises made in both parties manifestos. As I have pointed out many times, the HOC can pass all the motions they like, but they cannot force the executive to negotiate a CU agreement if they don't want to.
Yes they can
Actually no they can't. Not without actually removing the Executive.
Wrong as I believe it to be, treaty negotiation is still part of the Royal Prerogative and legally May can indeed ignore Parliament on this. I think it would probably be political suicide to do so but constitutionally she has the right.
Parliament can veto the ratification of a treaty though.
Yes it can but that is entirely a different matter. That is very different to forcing an Executive to negotiate in a particular way. If they strike down the treaty that emerges from the negotiations then we crash out without agreement. What they cannot do is force the Executive to negotiate a treaty they (the Executive) do not agree with.
If Labour had concentrated all their resources on Wandsworth they probably would have won it. Instead they tried to win Hillingdon, Westminster, Kensington and Barnet as well, and failed in all of them. They went backwards in Hillingdon and Barnet.
No 10's trade plan IS crazy. Boris Johnson's problem is he doesn't have a better plan.
It is called MaxFac. Have you been able to come up with any reason why it would not work, other than that your beloved EU says so?
The blunt answer to this is "we're running out of time" and we haven't hired bloke one yet. Whatever is decided by the Government (if we concede for the moment that the present administration can decide anything, which might not be true) will have to be followed by hiring people and deploying systems, yes?
In 1971 we went decimal. That was preceded by a report in 63, which was adopted in 66, a board set up (that year?), legislation passed in 69, then in 71 the banks closed for four days and the thing went without a hitch after a prolonged period of public information films.
We have eleven months to Brexit Day and we haven't dug one bloody hole in the ground yet.
[Is briefly sad. The British State used to be really good at things... ]
Tomorrow is a big day: it's the Democratic Primary for the West Virginian Third District. Richard Ojeda faces a tough challenge to be the Democratic nominee in a district that voted for Trump 74 to 24.
No 10's trade plan IS crazy. Boris Johnson's problem is he doesn't have a better plan.
It is called MaxFac. Have you been able to come up with any reason why it would not work, other than that your beloved EU says so?
The blunt answer to this is "we're running out of time" and we haven't hired bloke one yet. Whatever is decided by the Government (if we concede for the moment that the present administration can decide anything, which might not be true) will have to be followed by hiring people and deploying systems, yes?
In 1971 we went decimal. That was preceded by a report in 63, which was adopted in 66, a board set up (that year?), legislation passed in 69, then in 71 the banks closed for four days and the thing went without a hitch after a prolonged period of public information films.
We have eleven months to Brexit Day and we haven't dug one bloody hole in the ground yet.
[Is briefly sad. The British State used to be really good at things... ]
If you don't mind me saying so, that's a rubbish answer.
If MaxFac is the answer, then it can be implemented by the end of the 20 month transition period, which also gives us a chance to roll over as many of the existing treaties - especially as regards mutual standards recognition.
Parliament can veto the ratification of a treaty though.
Yes it can but that is entirely a different matter. That is very different to forcing an Executive to negotiate in a particular way. If they strike down the treaty that emerges from the negotiations then we crash out without agreement. What they cannot do is force the Executive to negotiate a treaty they (the Executive) do not agree with.
Absolutely right. The House of Commons can force the Executive in exactly two ways: it can eject it from power through a vote of No Confidence, or it can veto the Treaty.
As an aside, can I say that I thoroughly approve of the Lifetime Recipients Tax over Inheritance tax. It seems bizarre that we tax the estate, rather than the recipient.
It is called MaxFac. Have you been able to come up with any reason why it would not work, other than that your beloved EU says so?
The blunt answer to this is "we're running out of time" and we haven't hired bloke one yet. Whatever is decided by the Government (if we concede for the moment that the present administration can decide anything, which might not be true) will have to be followed by hiring people and deploying systems, yes?
In 1971 we went decimal. That was preceded by a report in 63, which was adopted in 66, a board set up (that year?), legislation passed in 69, then in 71 the banks closed for four days and the thing went without a hitch after a prolonged period of public information films.
We have eleven months to Brexit Day and we haven't dug one bloody hole in the ground yet.
[Is briefly sad. The British State used to be really good at things... ]
If you don't mind me saying so, that's a rubbish answer.
If MaxFac is the answer, then it can be implemented by the end of the 20 month transition period, which also gives us a chance to roll over as many of the existing treaties - especially as regards mutual standards recognition.
That's 31 months, not 11.
I was worried about that, so thank you for pulling me up on it. But it does beg the question: when is our drop-dead date? What is the point at which the present gabfest transitions from public onanism to criminal stupidity? To illustrate the point, 31 months ago was 8 October 2015...time flies, yes?
4 of the 7 main German pollsters now have the Social Democrats on 17%. Despite their slight recovery a couple of months ago, I think this is their worst showing ever in the polls.
It is called MaxFac. Have you been able to come up with any reason why it would not work, other than that your beloved EU says so?
The blunt answer to this is "we're running out of time" and we haven't hired bloke one yet. Whatever is decided by the Government (if we concede for the moment that the present administration can decide anything, which might not be true) will have to be followed by hiring people and deploying systems, yes?
In 1971 we went decimal. That was preceded by a report in 63, which was adopted in 66, a board set up (that year?), legislation passed in 69, then in 71 the banks closed for four days and the thing went without a hitch after a prolonged period of public information films.
We have eleven months to Brexit Day and we haven't dug one bloody hole in the ground yet.
[Is briefly sad. The British State used to be really good at things... ]
If you don't mind me saying so, that's a rubbish answer.
If MaxFac is the answer, then it can be implemented by the end of the 20 month transition period, which also gives us a chance to roll over as many of the existing treaties - especially as regards mutual standards recognition.
That's 31 months, not 11.
I was worried about that, so thank you for pulling me up on it. But it does beg the question: when is our drop-dead date? What is the point at which the present gabfest transitions from public onanism to criminal stupidity? To illustrate the point, 31 months ago was 8 October 2015...time flies, yes?
I've said from the start that Brexit should be seen as a process, rather than a single event. When we entered the (then) EEC we had a seven year transition from Imperial Preference Tariffs to the Common External Tariff, because it was felt it was too disruptive to do it all in one go.
So long as the direction of travel is clear, I think most people - of all hues - are happy with a staged implementation.
I don’t think the Tories should be terrified by a general election this year. The topic will be Brexit, and the question will be:
“Should the British government have the ability to control immigration from the EU?”
They just need to bang on about it for 6 weeks, avoid obvious mistakes like skipping debates and threatening the homes of the elderly, and they will get a majority.
There are some risks, of course.
The 2017 election was supposed to be about Brexit - but turned out not to be! Corbyn managed to change the subject , and I suspect that he would not find it difficult to do so again. For most voters Brexit is simply far too technical and they are sick to death of it- in reality they will be swayed by other issues.
Tomorrow is a big day: it's the Democratic Primary for the West Virginian Third District. Richard Ojeda faces a tough challenge to be the Democratic nominee in a district that voted for Trump 74 to 24.
Parliament can veto the ratification of a treaty though.
Yes it can but that is entirely a different matter. That is very different to forcing an Executive to negotiate in a particular way. If they strike down the treaty that emerges from the negotiations then we crash out without agreement. What they cannot do is force the Executive to negotiate a treaty they (the Executive) do not agree with.
Absolutely right. The House of Commons can force the Executive in exactly two ways: it can eject it from power through a vote of No Confidence, or it can veto the Treaty.
Anything else is just bullshit.
I just wish someone would tell the media this.
They seem to think that if parly amendment passes then it becomes written in stone; without recourse to the government, or our negotiating partners...
"This year's primary saw a surge of early voting, up more than 50 percent from the last off-year primary election in 2014, according to data compiled by Secretary of State Mac Warner’s office.
According to unofficial results, 68,391 voters statewide took advantage of the early voting period, which ended Saturday. That's up from 45,143 voters in the 2014 primary election.
This year's unofficial early turnout included 34,996 registered Democrats, 22,679 Republicans, and 10,475 independent/no party affiliation voters."
That's a lot of Democrats voting in a heavily Republican state.
The candidate in question is a former coal CEO who spent a year in prison following an accident at one of his mines which killed 20 people, and is leading in the polls to be the Republican candidate:
"Mr Blankenship has dubbed himself an “American political prisoner” and blamed his conviction on charges of conspiring to violate mine safety rules on a liberal conspiracy while also railing against the Republican leadership in Washington.
Among his targets has been Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader, who he dubbed “Cocaine Mitch” in a recent television ad that also railed against “China people”. Mr McConnell is married to Mr Trump’s transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, whose family owns a shipping company. The cocaine reference refers to a 2014 incident in which authorities in Colombia found 40 packages of the drug aboard one of the family’s bulk carriers."
After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose.
Agree with SeanT on this one.....no one, ever, has mentioned 'Britain's Immigration Policies' its usually 'does the queen really live at Buckingham Palace?' and 'where are the best places for selfies in London?'
After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose.
After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose.
I don’t think the Tories should be terrified by a general election this year. The topic will be Brexit, and the question will be:
“Should the British government have the ability to control immigration from the EU?”
They just need to bang on about it for 6 weeks, avoid obvious mistakes like skipping debates and threatening the homes of the elderly, and they will get a majority.
There are some risks, of course.
The 2017 election was supposed to be about Brexit - but turned out not to be! Corbyn managed to change the subject , and I suspect that he would not find it difficult to do so again. For most voters Brexit is simply far too technical and they are sick to death of it- in reality they will be swayed by other issues.
Sadiq Khan is currently trying to pull the same trick.
Blaming Government “cuts” in police funding for his failures as Mayor in tackling knife crime in London.
Comments
If only she was a leader, rather than a manager.
A GE is therefore more likely than a third in/out referendum.
The UK Parliament cannot direct the executive to do anything. They can pass or withhold laws, that is all.
If they tell the executive to negotiate a CU agreement, what happens if the executive refuses? The answer is that Parliament has the right to pass a motion of no-confidence in the executive and put in place an alternative executive in who they do have confidence.
Since Parliament will not no-confidence the executive, the Government can ignore such a direction.
Parliament can refuse to pass into law the Brexit bill if they choose (but we all know they would have to pass it in the end). They can refuse to pass an Act that enshrines the Withdrawal Agreement into law (in which case we exit with no deal). But Parliament cannot negotiate treaties. End of story.
Wrong as I believe it to be, treaty negotiation is still part of the Royal Prerogative and legally May can indeed ignore Parliament on this. I think it would probably be political suicide to do so but constitutionally she has the right.
We need a by-election or something to get the focus back onto betting.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/California-Is-Now-Worlds-5th-Largest-Economy-Surpasses-UK-481770711.html
Who one day got stuck in his garage
He campaigned so hard
But let down his guard
And suffered an electoral barrage.
In 1971 we went decimal. That was preceded by a report in 63, which was adopted in 66, a board set up (that year?), legislation passed in 69, then in 71 the banks closed for four days and the thing went without a hitch after a prolonged period of public information films.
We have eleven months to Brexit Day and we haven't dug one bloody hole in the ground yet.
[Is briefly sad. The British State used to be really good at things...
Keep an eye on this race.
If MaxFac is the answer, then it can be implemented by the end of the 20 month transition period, which also gives us a chance to roll over as many of the existing treaties - especially as regards mutual standards recognition.
That's 31 months, not 11.
Anything else is just bullshit.
https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/993184677761437696
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
So long as the direction of travel is clear, I think most people - of all hues - are happy with a staged implementation.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/07/the-spy-who-came-home
They seem to think that if parly amendment passes then it becomes written in stone; without recourse to the government, or our negotiating partners...
"This year's primary saw a surge of early voting, up more than 50 percent from the last off-year primary election in 2014, according to data compiled by Secretary of State Mac Warner’s office.
According to unofficial results, 68,391 voters statewide took advantage of the early voting period, which ended Saturday. That's up from 45,143 voters in the 2014 primary election.
This year's unofficial early turnout included 34,996 registered Democrats, 22,679 Republicans, and 10,475 independent/no party affiliation voters."
That's a lot of Democrats voting in a heavily Republican state.
https://www.ft.com/content/c027bae6-520d-11e8-b3ee-41e0209208ec
The candidate in question is a former coal CEO who spent a year in prison following an accident at one of his mines which killed 20 people, and is leading in the polls to be the Republican candidate:
"Mr Blankenship has dubbed himself an “American political prisoner” and blamed his conviction on charges of conspiring to violate mine safety rules on a liberal conspiracy while also railing against the Republican leadership in Washington.
Among his targets has been Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader, who he dubbed “Cocaine Mitch” in a recent television ad that also railed against “China people”. Mr McConnell is married to Mr Trump’s transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, whose family owns a shipping company. The cocaine reference refers to a 2014 incident in which authorities in Colombia found 40 packages of the drug aboard one of the family’s bulk carriers."
After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse
Agree with SeanT on this one.....no one, ever, has mentioned 'Britain's Immigration Policies' its usually 'does the queen really live at Buckingham Palace?' and 'where are the best places for selfies in London?'
https://twitter.com/brigidbergin/status/993669085073420288
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/07/trumps-long-angry-feud-with-the-new-york-attorney-general-now-accused-of-abusing-women/?utm_term=.4ce5fa59912f
Blaming Government “cuts” in police funding for his failures as Mayor in tackling knife crime in London.
There is no way he is going anywhere.....