If only we Brits didn't hate foreigners so much a deal would be easy-peasy.
And while we're on the subject, at what point do we deem people who have been living abroad foreigners? Two generations? Two years?
On average it takes them two months to become more British than the people who live here.
And your evidence for this?
Of course there is none.
You realise it's a joke? Please tell me you realise it's a joke.
William lives in a world, as far as I can tell, where the beat of a butterfly's wings in Papua New Guinea leads down a thought process flow chart, which always goes to a big box at the bottom marked "REMAIN". He's just about refrained for five days from announcing that TM is about to ask for a second referendum, since she stood up on national TV from No 10 and said she wouldn't last Friday, but I note that Sajid Javid, saying the same thing yesterday led straight down the box to "he doesn't mean it".
Frankly, no I don't realise it's a joke coming from the source it did, and I doubt it is. It's, to me at least, yet another smug barb, and I pride myself on having a pretty good sense of the absurd. Most of the time.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
I meant the voters.
I agree the voters will be livid one way or another
It does point rather towards another referendum. Either way, get the voters to dip their hands in the blood. No arguing over "this isn't the Brexit we voted for".
But the Conservative voters (who are most motivated to leave) don't want to risk leaving at all, so they'll want an exit with no further vote right up until things turn to ratshit, at which point, they'll turn on the Tories faster than you can say "hang on, what?", and blame them for everything.
May has a number of options, all of them terrible.
I wondered where the SNP deep down sits in all of this.
I'm sure they are quite happy making noises about revoking A50 through Parliament, but have they actually called for a second referendum?
And do they really want to set that precedent? Genuine question, I don't know.
Their stance is a bit equivocal. They're not calling for one, but have said they "wouldn't stand in the way" of one.
If only we Brits didn't hate foreigners so much a deal would be easy-peasy.
And while we're on the subject, at what point do we deem people who have been living abroad foreigners? Two generations? Two years?
On average it takes them two months to become more British than the people who live here.
And your evidence for this?
Of course there is none.
You realise it's a joke? Please tell me you realise it's a joke.
William lives in a world, as far as I can tell, where the beat of a butterfly's wings in Papua New Guinea leads down a thought process flow chart, which always goes to a big box at the bottom marked "REMAIN". He's just about refrained for five days from announcing that TM is about to ask for a second referendum, since she stood up on national TV from No 10 and said she wouldn't last Friday, but I note that Sajid Javid, saying the same thing yesterday led straight down the box to "he doesn't mean it".
Frankly, no I don't realise it's a joke coming from the source it did, and I doubt it is. It's, to me at least, yet another smug barb, and I pride myself on having a pretty good sense of the absurd. Most of the time.
One man's smug barb is another man's clever witticism. Depends on where you're standing, and how long since your last cup of coffee...
Yes, William can be a little monomaniacal at times, but there are plenty on the 'other' side who are too.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
Completely o/t today is my birthday and my wife took me out for lunch at the new V&A in Dundee. There are some extensive free exhibitions and some nice models but as I anticipated the building is the absolute star. I would say it looks even more incredible from the inside than it does from the out. Not sure if this will work but:
If only we Brits didn't hate foreigners so much a deal would be easy-peasy.
And while we're on the subject, at what point do we deem people who have been living abroad foreigners? Two generations? Two years?
On average it takes them two months to become more British than the people who live here.
And your evidence for this?
Of course there is none.
You realise it's a joke? Please tell me you realise it's a joke.
William lives in a world, as far as I can tell, where the beat of a butterfly's wings in Papua New Guinea leads down a thought process flow chart, which always goes to a big box at the bottom marked "REMAIN". He's just about refrained for five days from announcing that TM is about to ask for a second referendum, since she stood up on national TV from No 10 and said she wouldn't last Friday, but I note that Sajid Javid, saying the same thing yesterday led straight down the box to "he doesn't mean it".
Frankly, no I don't realise it's a joke coming from the source it did, and I doubt it is. It's, to me at least, yet another smug barb, and I pride myself on having a pretty good sense of the absurd. Most of the time.
One man's smug barb is another man's clever witticism. Depends on where you're standing, and how long since your last cup of coffee...
Yes, William can be a little monomaniacal at times, but there are plenty on the 'other' side who are too.
Actually the idefatigability has it's own charm! But Christ........
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
Canada is not an option because of N Ireland. EU won't accept Canada without NI in SM; UK won't accept intra-UK barriers.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
It doesn't bother me much at all - I don't expect the EU to agree Canada with May and I have always predicted no deal. Strategically, no deal is now the best way forward for the UK. Once the pressure of A50 is gone and the EU don't have the money nor do they have control over the NI border any longer, the conditions will be in place for a quick deal based on CETA.
I think this is the only way forward now because the EU simply don't believe May won't cave in and give them everything they want. But even if she does, the DUP and ERG will vote it down.
It would be a lot better for the country if we just walked away now and prepared for no deal and the negotiations that will follow rather than go through this mess any longer.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
TM no deal comments are in the context of a hard negotiation.
If she negotiates Canada fine but it is clear that it will not happen
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
TM no deal comments are in the context of a hard negotiation.
If she negotiates Canada fine but it is clear that it will not happen
TM deal will be the only option
Its only an option if the EU agree to it! Do you think the EU are bluffing and will really agree to it?
If the EU won't agree to it then what is the fallback? She's claiming no deal. Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove say Canada is better than no deal. So what do you think?
Canada is not an option because of N Ireland. EU won't accept Canada without NI in SM; UK won't accept intra-UK barriers.
But Canada is an option apart from N Ireland and Chequers isn't an option for a number of other reasons they won't accept it.
No deal isn't an option because of N Ireland too and that applies to the EU too and a whole host of other reasons.
So when you eliminate the impossible, all that remains however improbable is either EEA or Canada. As the EU said on day 1.
Agreed. It is too easy for the EU to reject Chequers. But if the UK offer CETA on the express provision there will be no NI backstop, EU leaders will be faced with a real choice for the first time - a deal they can easily do against no deal. And lets be honest - none of them actually give a stuff about the NI border. That is just Barnier's little game.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
It doesn't bother me much at all - I don't expect the EU to agree Canada with May and I have always predicted no deal. Strategically, no deal is now the best way forward for the UK. Once the pressure of A50 is gone and the EU don't have the money nor do they have control over the NI border any longer, the conditions will be in place for a quick deal based on CETA.
I think this is the only way forward now because the EU simply don't believe May won't cave in and give them everything they want. But even if she does, the DUP and ERG will vote it down.
It would be a lot better for the country if we just walked away now and prepared for no deal and the negotiations that will follow rather than go through this mess any longer.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
TM no deal comments are in the context of a hard negotiation.
If she negotiates Canada fine but it is clear that it will not happen
TM deal will be the only option
Its only an option if the EU agree to it! Do you think the EU are bluffing and will really agree to it?
If the EU won't agree to it then what is the fallback? She's claiming no deal. Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove say Canada is better than no deal. So what do you think?
Completely o/t today is my birthday and my wife took me out for lunch at the new V&A in Dundee. There are some extensive free exhibitions and some nice models but as I anticipated the building is the absolute star. I would say it looks even more incredible from the inside than it does from the out. Not sure if this will work but:
Anyway, we seem to have few options and all of them bad:
- Attempt a Canada-style deal. This would take many years (just look at how long CETA took, and th - Transition to EEA. This could be done quickly and relatively easily (and painlessly) and there's possibly a majority in Parliament for it, but it's a hard sell to the public, especially with FoM (which may be overcomable with the Liechtenstein scenario). Possibly the least popular option with the public. - Multiple minimal deal Brexit ("controlled No Deal"): Massive queues at ports, significant issues with trade (including supply chain issues that would propagate throughout the domestic economy), very few preparations are really done, would cause serious issues that wouldn't be solved in the near term - No Deal ("crash out No Deal"). Really really bad, colossal queues at ports, serious damage to trade and domestic economy, few preparations really done, would cause huge issues that would take many years to resolve. - Remain after all. Now launching Leavers-1 to orbit, serious anger, loss of faith in democracy, minimal economic issues, political and social issues that led to the Brexit vote could be swept under the table.
Have I missed any?
terms, payments etc. And there is zero chance that FoM could be fudged in an EEA scenario; it would be identical to remaining in the EU in that respect.
Chequers is dead; it's not an option. It's one of the impossible ones rejected; the rest are merely highly unpalatable. You're right with the Canada-style deal - it would indeed increase the supply-chain issues; it's less attractive as well as being difficult and prolonged. The EEA transition is relatively easy - there's an appropriate off-the-shelf agreement; it's just the ratification required (Payments are already made clear in it). You're right that it's not necessarily that quick to sign and get ratified, but it's orders of magnitude quicker than any alternative agreement other than controlled crash or uncontrolled crash.
No food or fish in EEA. Why would Ireland, France, NL, DK, PL, It, ES or basically all of them accept that?
Minimum turmoil, minimum disruption, keeps us close to the orbit of the EU, already agreed as a standard Agreement, makes everyone's lives easier. They'd accept EEA, no question. The difficult bit is if we would accept it, and that's a big hurdle.
There's also whether EFTA would accept it. I suspect it probably would but the UK simply transitioning to EFTA and EEA membership on 29 March 2019 isn't something within the gift of either the UK or EU and would require a separate accession process.
Canada is not an option because of N Ireland. EU won't accept Canada without NI in SM; UK won't accept intra-UK barriers.
But Canada is an option apart from N Ireland and Chequers isn't an option for a number of other reasons they won't accept it.
No deal isn't an option because of N Ireland too and that applies to the EU too and a whole host of other reasons.
So when you eliminate the impossible, all that remains however improbable is either EEA or Canada. As the EU said on day 1.
There does seem to be an issue with eliminating the impossible. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion of what is and is not impossible, and it seems to disagree with everyone else's such opinion.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
Canada is not an option because of N Ireland. EU won't accept Canada without NI in SM; UK won't accept intra-UK barriers.
For now. Once we have left on the basis of No (Trade) Deal on 29th March, the EU will subsequently realise that it prefers a Canada type trading arrangement to nothing, regardless of what happens to Northern Ireland.
Looking at this cross examination in the US with that row of men it does make you wonder if the US are in some dark age rather than 2018
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
Thanks. Sorry about the pictures but the inside looks even more like a wooden sailing boat with portholes overlooking the river and views of Cook's Discovery out the side window. It really is an exceptional building.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
TM no deal comments are in the context of a hard negotiation.
If she negotiates Canada fine but it is clear that it will not happen
TM deal will be the only option
Its only an option if the EU agree to it! Do you think the EU are bluffing and will really agree to it?
If the EU won't agree to it then what is the fallback? She's claiming no deal. Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove say Canada is better than no deal. So what do you think?
I really have concluded this discussion
No you haven't, you haven't said what your Plan B is. You're the one who made a big deal about Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove rejecting no deal but they did so specifically by naming a Plan B - Canada. That seems to be an uncomfortable truth for you.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
TM no deal comments are in the context of a hard negotiation.
If she negotiates Canada fine but it is clear that it will not happen
TM deal will be the only option
Its only an option if the EU agree to it! Do you think the EU are bluffing and will really agree to it?
If the EU won't agree to it then what is the fallback? She's claiming no deal. Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove say Canada is better than no deal. So what do you think?
I really have concluded this discussion
No you haven't, you haven't said what your Plan B is. You're the one who made a big deal about Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove rejecting no deal but they did so specifically by naming a Plan B - Canada. That seems to be an uncomfortable truth for you.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
It doesn't matter whether parliament revokes the PM's right to invoke A50; that invocation has already happened and nothing within domestic UK politics can retrospectively change the notification's validity.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
TM no deal comments are in the context of a hard negotiation.
If she negotiates Canada fine but it is clear that it will not happen
TM deal will be the only option
Its only an option if the EU agree to it! Do you think the EU are bluffing and will really agree to it?
If the EU won't agree to it then what is the fallback? She's claiming no deal. Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove say Canada is better than no deal. So what do you think?
I really have concluded this discussion
No you haven't, you haven't said what your Plan B is. You're the one who made a big deal about Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove rejecting no deal but they did so specifically by naming a Plan B - Canada. That seems to be an uncomfortable truth for you.
Canada is not an option because of N Ireland. EU won't accept Canada without NI in SM; UK won't accept intra-UK barriers.
But Canada is an option apart from N Ireland and Chequers isn't an option for a number of other reasons they won't accept it.
No deal isn't an option because of N Ireland too and that applies to the EU too and a whole host of other reasons.
So when you eliminate the impossible, all that remains however improbable is either EEA or Canada. As the EU said on day 1.
No Deal *is* an option - albeit an unpaletable one - because uniquely, it's the option that doesn't have to be agreed; it's simply what happens if nothing else is agreed. You're quite right that No Deal also fails the EU's Irish border question but that's simply an incentive for them to do an alternative deal, if they can; it doesn't mean they will, never mind must.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
TM no deal comments are in the context of a hard negotiation.
If she negotiates Canada fine but it is clear that it will not happen
TM deal will be the only option
Its only an option if the EU agree to it! Do you think the EU are bluffing and will really agree to it?
If the EU won't agree to it then what is the fallback? She's claiming no deal. Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove say Canada is better than no deal. So what do you think?
I really have concluded this discussion
No you haven't, you haven't said what your Plan B is. You're the one who made a big deal about Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove rejecting no deal but they did so specifically by naming a Plan B - Canada. That seems to be an uncomfortable truth for you.
As you wish
What's Plan B?
Raab, Javid, Hunt and Gove did not endorse Canada, they endorse Chequers
I see we are again witnessing the deeply unedifying spectacle of Brexiteer keyboard warriors calling for an economy wrecking No Deal Brexit from their permanent residence on the other side of the world. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, as they say in New South Wales.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
So you back May then? No deal is better than Canada?
Canada is not an option because of N Ireland. EU won't accept Canada without NI in SM; UK won't accept intra-UK barriers.
For now. Once we have left on the basis of No (Trade) Deal on 29th March, the EU will subsequently realise that it prefers a Canada type trading arrangement to nothing, regardless of what happens to Northern Ireland.
Yes, I was meaning pre-29/3/19. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the event of No Deal, some of those 'technological customs solutions' start looking a bit more feasible to Brussels.
Looking at this cross examination in the US with that row of men it does make you wonder if the US are in some dark age rather than 2018
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
Indeed it makes you glad that wouldn't happen in this country.
It doesn't threaten Trump's presidency it does threaten what would be his "greatest" achievement. Had Hillary won she could have appointed a liberal to replace a staunch conservative on the Supreme Court (though would have had to pick a moderate to get past the Senate). A 5-4 conservative majority with a moderate swing conservative justice would have been a 5-4 liberal majority with some moderate swing liberal justices.
Trump got to replace the staunch conservative with another staunch conservative. That didn't really change the balance and was a missed opportunity for liberals.
Now though the moderate conservative is retiring. Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative. He's young too. The conservatives would have 5 staunch conservatives on the bench, almost all youngish. They would control the Supreme Court potentially for decades.
If Kavanaugh falls, then the Democrats may win enough Senators in November to prevent a staunch conservative being approved.
Looking at this cross examination in the US with that row of men it does make you wonder if the US are in some dark age rather than 2018
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
It doesn't. It threatens the creation of a Republican/conservative-leaning Court though.
I see we are again witnessing the deeply unedifying spectacle of Brexiteer keyboard warriors calling for an economy wrecking No Deal Brexit from their permanent residence on the other side of the world. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, as they say in New South Wales.
We're sipping G & T's, and twirling our moustaches, and chuckling evilly, as we contemplate buying opportunities in the event of No Deal.
I see we are again witnessing the deeply unedifying spectacle of Brexiteer keyboard warriors calling for an economy wrecking No Deal Brexit from their permanent residence on the other side of the world. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, as they say in New South Wales.
Actually as a still-in-the-UK-remainer I am coming round to the idea of a No-Deal Brexit simply for the sheer entertainment value of watching the leading Brexiteers making their final statement as the rebels line them up in front of the (verbal) firing squads. A modern version of Les Tricoteuses... I suppose I need to learn to knit?
I hadn't realised that part of Republicans' defence of Kavanaugh is that two other men (presumably both named 'Spartacus') say they assaulted Ford, not Kavanaugh.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
It doesn't matter whether parliament revokes the PM's right to invoke A50; that invocation has already happened and nothing within domestic UK politics can retrospectively change the notification's validity.
Surely that depends on the ECJ case referred by the Scots?
Mr. D, there was a case in Australia of a woman found guilty (I forget the precise crime) when she claimed her very young son was snatched by dingoes. Part of the reason was that she wasn't blubbing her eyes out and the jury felt she was cold.
Later evidence proved she'd been telling the truth.
On the matter at hand, I'd be somewhat surprised if he ends up getting confirmed, but we'll see.
I see we are again witnessing the deeply unedifying spectacle of Brexiteer keyboard warriors calling for an economy wrecking No Deal Brexit from their permanent residence on the other side of the world. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, as they say in New South Wales.
Not sure Archer is calling for a no deal. He wants a Canada deal that seems to have disappeared over the last few days with interventions from Amber Rudd (block of 40 conservatives) calling for a second referendum and voying to take down Canada, the DUP rejecting Canada, and Jeremy Hunt live from New York today backing TM and Chequers
I do understand that some will be annoyed or angry but TM deal is the only one in town and if it fails no deal is a possibility but more likely the question will go to the public. Remain or leave
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
Yes. It could even repeal any Act that had made it non advisory, so to speak.
However, at that point we really are off to the races.
Why vote?
Well, we voted on the basis of very incomplete information. The govt could claim, probably with some justification, that in the light of current information, to proceed would be an act of national self-harm and given the schedules involved....
Looking at this cross examination in the US with that row of men it does make you wonder if the US are in some dark age rather than 2018
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
It doesn't. It threatens the creation of a Republican/conservative-leaning Court though.
Looking at this cross examination in the US with that row of men it does make you wonder if the US are in some dark age rather than 2018
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
Indeed it makes you glad that wouldn't happen in this country.
It doesn't threaten Trump's presidency it does threaten what would be his "greatest" achievement. Had Hillary won she could have appointed a liberal to replace a staunch conservative on the Supreme Court (though would have had to pick a moderate to get past the Senate). A 5-4 conservative majority with a moderate swing conservative justice would have been a 5-4 liberal majority with some moderate swing liberal justices.
Trump got to replace the staunch conservative with another staunch conservative. That didn't really change the balance and was a missed opportunity for liberals.
Now though the moderate conservative is retiring. Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative. He's young too. The conservatives would have 5 staunch conservatives on the bench, almost all youngish. They would control the Supreme Court potentially for decades.
If Kavanaugh falls, then the Democrats may win enough Senators in November to prevent a staunch conservative being approved.
Looking at this cross examination in the US with that row of men it does make you wonder if the US are in some dark age rather than 2018
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
It doesn't. It threatens the creation of a Republican/conservative-leaning Court though.
Thanks - US politics beyond me
It's dreadful that so much political power is vested in a Court.
Dramatic 'live' testimony from the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh on Sky
Think this will be big news on boadcast channels tonight and tomorrow.
Doubt Brexit will feature at all
Dramatic - but I don't buy all of it.
It does not sound good for Kavanaugh. Emotional testimony
Doesn’t make it true.
I know memory is a very difficult thing but I was struck by how precise she was able to be with regards to the boys 'pinballing' down the stair well - but couldn't remember the location or date of the incident.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
It doesn't matter whether parliament revokes the PM's right to invoke A50; that invocation has already happened and nothing within domestic UK politics can retrospectively change the notification's validity.
Surely that depends on the ECJ case referred by the Scots?
That's on whether A50 is revocable, not whether the original notification can be subsequently invalidated domestically. The two are of course linked but the earlier assertion was "what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke", which while true in terms of powers that might be usable in the future isn't true of those used in the past.
It is worth noting in passing that if the ECJ does rule that A50 can be unilaterally revoked, there'd still need to be another Act passed by Westminster as the one used by May to invoke A50 grants only that power. Given the court case that led to the Act, it follows that the government couldn't use inherent executive powers to override that explicitly conferred by parliament.
Mr. D, there was a case in Australia of a woman found guilty (I forget the precise crime) when she claimed her very young son was snatched by dingoes. Part of the reason was that she wasn't blubbing her eyes out and the jury felt she was cold.
Later evidence proved she'd been telling the truth.
On the matter at hand, I'd be somewhat surprised if he ends up getting confirmed, but we'll see.
There is also the case of Peter Falconio. His girlfriend Joanna Lees survived the attempted kidnapping, but the Australian media ripped the sh*t out of her because she as not emotional enough. She was treated abominably by some of their media. The truth came out later utterly clearing her.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
Yes. It could even repeal any Act that had made it non advisory, so to speak.
However, at that point we really are off to the races.
Why vote?
Well, we voted on the basis of very incomplete information. The govt could claim, probably with some justification, that in the light of current information, to proceed would be an act of national self-harm and given the schedules involved....
Well you could have said the same about Scottish Independence (hence my wondering about the SNP's postioning), or electing Corbyn. But if good old Jezza gets a small majority, we can't all say, hang on for three years whilst we have a good moan, before you actually get to walk down Downing St, and then we'll have another go at voting. We get another go once his Govt has been implemented. You can get another "go" at rejoining when we've left for a bit.
Anyway "incomplete" is in the eye of the beholder. I felt sufficiently complete from 43 years of experience. What has come to light since about the EU bloody mindedness has merely confirmed my view.
Looking at this cross examination in the US with that row of men it does make you wonder if the US are in some dark age rather than 2018
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
Indeed it makes you glad that wouldn't happen in this country.
It doesn't threaten Trump's presidency it does threaten what would be his "greatest" achievement. Had Hillary won she could have appointed a liberal to replace a staunch conservative on the Supreme Court (though would have had to pick a moderate to get past the Senate). A 5-4 conservative majority with a moderate swing conservative justice would have been a 5-4 liberal majority with some moderate swing liberal justices.
Trump got to replace the staunch conservative with another staunch conservative. That didn't really change the balance and was a missed opportunity for liberals.
Now though the moderate conservative is retiring. Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative. He's young too. The conservatives would have 5 staunch conservatives on the bench, almost all youngish. They would control the Supreme Court potentially for decades.
If Kavanaugh falls, then the Democrats may win enough Senators in November to prevent a staunch conservative being approved.
Parliament has two, and only two options. They can vote for or against any deal presented. Or they can no confidence the Government.
Nothing else Parliament does will make any difference.
Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with Archer here. Often hear that Parliament will block No Deal. But, the only way to do that is to vote for a deal. Parliament cannot magically make a deal appear to vote on if none exists. So, how exactly can HofC prevent No Deal, given that we leave in March? Sorry if the answer is obvious.
If only we Brits didn't hate foreigners so much a deal would be easy-peasy.
And while we're on the subject, at what point do we deem people who have been living abroad foreigners? Two generations? Two years?
On average it takes them two months to become more British than the people who live here.
And your evidence for this?
Of course there is none.
You realise it's a joke? Please tell me you realise it's a joke.
William lives in a world, as far as I can tell, where the beat of a butterfly's wings in Papua New Guinea leads down a thought process flow chart, which always goes to a big box at the bottom marked "REMAIN". He's just about refrained for five days from announcing that TM is about to ask for a second referendum, since she stood up on national TV from No 10 and said she wouldn't last Friday, but I note that Sajid Javid, saying the same thing yesterday led straight down the box to "he doesn't mean it".
Frankly, no I don't realise it's a joke coming from the source it did, and I doubt it is. It's, to me at least, yet another smug barb, and I pride myself on having a pretty good sense of the absurd. Most of the time.
Very good... although I think the detail of your explanation is clear evidence of concern over losing the inevitable 2nd referendum
Canada went because the DUP who say tear up Chequers call it vague? Or because Amber Rudd opposed it? Or because it emerges the majority of the cabinet now back it as Plan B?
Benson (contributor to Fox which is what I'm using as my yardstick here)
"Opening statements and first questions are complete. Thus far, Dr. Ford has struck me as intelligent, in control, and serious. It's impossible to know if she's telling the truth, but she has not come across as a liar."
Looking at this cross examination in the US with that row of men it does make you wonder if the US are in some dark age rather than 2018
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
Indeed it makes you glad that wouldn't happen in this country.
It doesn't threaten Trump's presidency it does threaten what would be his "greatest" achievement. Had Hillary won she could have appointed a liberal to replace a staunch conservative on the Supreme Court (though would have had to pick a moderate to get past the Senate). A 5-4 conservative majority with a moderate swing conservative justice would have been a 5-4 liberal majority with some moderate swing liberal justices.
Trump got to replace the staunch conservative with another staunch conservative. That didn't really change the balance and was a missed opportunity for liberals.
Now though the moderate conservative is retiring. Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative. He's young too. The conservatives would have 5 staunch conservatives on the bench, almost all youngish. They would control the Supreme Court potentially for decades.
If Kavanaugh falls, then the Democrats may win enough Senators in November to prevent a staunch conservative being approved.
Completely o/t today is my birthday and my wife took me out for lunch at the new V&A in Dundee. There are some extensive free exhibitions and some nice models but as I anticipated the building is the absolute star. I would say it looks even more incredible from the inside than it does from the out. Not sure if this will work but:
Mr. Jessop, I'd not heard that story (and thanks for providing the details for the one I mentioned). It's depressing that some see more emotions as more truth.
Canada went because the DUP who say tear up Chequers call it vague? Or because Amber Rudd opposed it? Or because it emerges the majority of the cabinet now back it as Plan B?
Canada is not an option because of N Ireland. EU won't accept Canada without NI in SM; UK won't accept intra-UK barriers.
But Canada is an option apart from N Ireland and Chequers isn't an option for a number of other reasons they won't accept it.
No deal isn't an option because of N Ireland too and that applies to the EU too and a whole host of other reasons.
So when you eliminate the impossible, all that remains however improbable is either EEA or Canada. As the EU said on day 1.
Agreed. It is too easy for the EU to reject Chequers. But if the UK offer CETA on the express provision there will be no NI backstop, EU leaders will be faced with a real choice for the first time - a deal they can easily do against no deal. And lets be honest - none of them actually give a stuff about the NI border. That is just Barnier's little game.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
It doesn't matter whether parliament revokes the PM's right to invoke A50; that invocation has already happened and nothing within domestic UK politics can retrospectively change the notification's validity.
Surely that depends on the ECJ case referred by the Scots?
That's on whether A50 is revocable, not whether the original notification can be subsequently invalidated domestically. The two are of course linked but the earlier assertion was "what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke", which while true in terms of powers that might be usable in the future isn't true of those used in the past.
It is worth noting in passing that if the ECJ does rule that A50 can be unilaterally revoked, there'd still need to be another Act passed by Westminster as the one used by May to invoke A50 grants only that power. Given the court case that led to the Act, it follows that the government couldn't use inherent executive powers to override that explicitly conferred by parliament.
If only we Brits didn't hate foreigners so much a deal would be easy-peasy.
And while we're on the subject, at what point do we deem people who have been living abroad foreigners? Two generations? Two years?
On average it takes them two months to become more British than the people who live here.
And your evidence for this?
Of course there is none.
You realise it's a joke? Please tell me you realise it's a joke.
William lives in a world, as far as I can tell, where the beat of a butterfly's wings in Papua New Guinea leads down a thought process flow chart, which always goes to a big box at the bottom marked "REMAIN". He's just about refrained for five days from announcing that TM is about to ask for a second referendum, since she stood up on national TV from No 10 and said she wouldn't last Friday, but I note that Sajid Javid, saying the same thing yesterday led straight down the box to "he doesn't mean it".
Frankly, no I don't realise it's a joke coming from the source it did, and I doubt it is. It's, to me at least, yet another smug barb, and I pride myself on having a pretty good sense of the absurd. Most of the time.
Very good... although I think the detail of your explanation is clear evidence of concern over losing the inevitable 2nd referendum
Mr. D, there was a case in Australia of a woman found guilty (I forget the precise crime) when she claimed her very young son was snatched by dingoes. Part of the reason was that she wasn't blubbing her eyes out and the jury felt she was cold.
Later evidence proved she'd been telling the truth.
On the matter at hand, I'd be somewhat surprised if he ends up getting confirmed, but we'll see.
There is also the case of Peter Falconio. His girlfriend Joanna Lees survived the attempted kidnapping, but the Australian media ripped the sh*t out of her because she as not emotional enough. She was treated abominably by some of their media. The truth came out later utterly clearing her.
Grief can affect people in different ways. What can appear as indifference, may in reality be an inability to come to terms with what has happened.
Conversely, some people who appear to be grieving are liars. I remember one man weeping and wailing after the murder of his wife, who had in fact done the job.
Sadly another case of human detritus being dumped on another (sub-)planetary body with no consideration of its fundamental right to exist undisturbed an uncontaminated. Unethical science.
Parliament has two, and only two options. They can vote for or against any deal presented. Or they can no confidence the Government.
Nothing else Parliament does will make any difference.
Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with Archer here. Often hear that Parliament will block No Deal. But, the only way to do that is to vote for a deal. Parliament cannot magically make a deal appear to vote on if none exists. So, how exactly can HofC prevent No Deal, given that we leave in March? Sorry if the answer is obvious.
That is a whole new ball game - no deal would be a huge moment and I do not know the parliamentary procedure to stop it other than huge pressure from within the HOC for a remain - leave referendum
Mr. D, there was a case in Australia of a woman found guilty (I forget the precise crime) when she claimed her very young son was snatched by dingoes. Part of the reason was that she wasn't blubbing her eyes out and the jury felt she was cold.
Later evidence proved she'd been telling the truth.
On the matter at hand, I'd be somewhat surprised if he ends up getting confirmed, but we'll see.
There is also the case of Peter Falconio. His girlfriend Joanna Lees survived the attempted kidnapping, but the Australian media ripped the sh*t out of her because she as not emotional enough. She was treated abominably by some of their media. The truth came out later utterly clearing her.
Grief can affect people in different ways. What can appear as indifference, may in reality be an inability to come to terms with what has happened.
Conversely, some people who appear to be grieving are liars. I remember one man weeping and wailing after the murder of his wife, who had in fact done the job.
Mrs C, indeed. But remaining in shouldn't be presented as some sort of minor move or the safe option. Whatever happens going forward, a very significant (perhaps over half) proportion of the population will be displeased, and many will be livid.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
Yes. It could even repeal any Act that had made it non advisory, so to speak.
However, at that point we really are off to the races.
Why vote?
Well, we voted on the basis of very incomplete information. The govt could claim, probably with some justification, that in the light of current information, to proceed would be an act of national self-harm and given the schedules involved....
As I have been banging on about for some time, it can be argued that we were in a process of decision making under ignorance.
Of course no politician could use the word *gn*r*nc* to describe the referendum result but the academic theory is robust to warrant a second referendum (I am still undecided if I want one or not; my instinct is no and to wait for a UK fudge).
Just listened to Martha Kearney's interview with Jeremy Hunt. He really is pathetic. Anyone thinking of putting money on him for next leader should listen to it. Makes the 'quiet man' sound charismatic
Sadly another case of human detritus being dumped on another (sub-)planetary body with no consideration of its fundamental right to exist undisturbed an uncontaminated. Unethical science.
Bah humbug. I'll wait for you to go out there with a placard: "JAXA - go away!" Until then, let's keep on sending probes
This is superb science. We'll learn a great deal, including about how Earth and the other planets formed, and how we might prevent one hitting Earth in the future. I can't wait for OSIRIS-REx to land on Bennu later this year.
Mr. Roger, nonsense. Hunt is an excellent politician who, along with Mordaunt, is destined to be in the final two at the next Conservative leadership contest.
Sadly another case of human detritus being dumped on another (sub-)planetary body with no consideration of its fundamental right to exist undisturbed an uncontaminated. Unethical science.
Bah humbug. I'll wait for you to go out there with a placard: "JAXA - go away!" Until then, let's keep on sending probes
This is superb science. We'll learn a great deal, including about how Earth and the other planets formed, and how we might prevent one hitting Earth in the future. I can't wait for OSIRIS-REx to land on Bennu later this year.
Come on, the pair of you are making these names up aren't you?
If only we Brits didn't hate foreigners so much a deal would be easy-peasy.
And while we're on the subject, at what point do we deem people who have been living abroad foreigners? Two generations? Two years?
On average it takes them two months to become more British than the people who live here.
And your evidence for this?
Of course there is none.
You realise it's a joke? Please tell me you realise it's a joke.
William lives in a world, as far as I can tell, where the beat of a butterfly's wings in Papua New Guinea leads down a thought process flow chart, which always goes to a big box at the bottom marked "REMAIN". He's just about refrained for five days from announcing that TM is about to ask for a second referendum, since she stood up on national TV from No 10 and said she wouldn't last Friday, but I note that Sajid Javid, saying the same thing yesterday led straight down the box to "he doesn't mean it".
Frankly, no I don't realise it's a joke coming from the source it did, and I doubt it is. It's, to me at least, yet another smug barb, and I pride myself on having a pretty good sense of the absurd. Most of the time.
Very good... although I think the detail of your explanation is clear evidence of concern over losing the inevitable 2nd referendum
Sadly another case of human detritus being dumped on another (sub-)planetary body with no consideration of its fundamental right to exist undisturbed an uncontaminated. Unethical science.
Bah humbug. I'll wait for you to go out there with a placard: "JAXA - go away!" Until then, let's keep on sending probes
This is superb science. We'll learn a great deal, including about how Earth and the other planets formed, and how we might prevent one hitting Earth in the future. I can't wait for OSIRIS-REx to land on Bennu later this year.
Team Corbyn are in Brussels today to meet with EU negotiators, poor planning meant they had a little taxi trouble when they realised they had no means to pay.
Just listened to Martha Kearney's interview with Jeremy Hunt. He really is pathetic. Anyone thinking of putting money on him for next leader should listen to it. Makes the 'quiet man' sound charismatic
I would respectfully suggest that would be your reaction to any conservative
Parliament has two, and only two options. They can vote for or against any deal presented. Or they can no confidence the Government.
Nothing else Parliament does will make any difference.
Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with Archer here. Often hear that Parliament will block No Deal. But, the only way to do that is to vote for a deal. Parliament cannot magically make a deal appear to vote on if none exists. So, how exactly can HofC prevent No Deal, given that we leave in March? Sorry if the answer is obvious.
That is a whole new ball game - no deal would be a huge moment and I do not know the parliamentary procedure to stop it other than huge pressure from within the HOC for a remain - leave referendum
Surely if we get to April it would have to be apply to rejoin/remain out?
Sadly another case of human detritus being dumped on another (sub-)planetary body with no consideration of its fundamental right to exist undisturbed an uncontaminated. Unethical science.
Bah humbug. I'll wait for you to go out there with a placard: "JAXA - go away!" Until then, let's keep on sending probes
This is superb science. We'll learn a great deal, including about how Earth and the other planets formed, and how we might prevent one hitting Earth in the future. I can't wait for OSIRIS-REx to land on Bennu later this year.
Can I self-identify as a Ryuguian?
Since you are a lefty, perhaps you should concentrate on NASA's mission and become a Benn-uite
Sadly another case of human detritus being dumped on another (sub-)planetary body with no consideration of its fundamental right to exist undisturbed an uncontaminated. Unethical science.
Bah humbug. I'll wait for you to go out there with a placard: "JAXA - go away!" Until then, let's keep on sending probes
This is superb science. We'll learn a great deal, including about how Earth and the other planets formed, and how we might prevent one hitting Earth in the future. I can't wait for OSIRIS-REx to land on Bennu later this year.
Come on, the pair of you are making these names up aren't you?
OSIRIS-REx stads for the "Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer" (and of course I had to look that up on Wiki). Ages ago I listened to a podcast where a team member talked about the trouble they had trying to make up its name...
Dramatic 'live' testimony from the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh on Sky
Think this will be big news on boadcast channels tonight and tomorrow.
Doubt Brexit will feature at all
Dramatic - but I don't buy all of it.
It does not sound good for Kavanaugh. Emotional testimony
Doesn’t make it true.
I know memory is a very difficult thing but I was struck by how precise she was able to be with regards to the boys 'pinballing' down the stair well - but couldn't remember the location or date of the incident.
Is it really surprising? For her personal experience (which she says she was affected by for many years) the time and places were basically irrelevant, and not likely to be something that was committed to memory (short of those things having some other significance to her - eg. her birthday). It wasn't as if she was ever expecting to be required to produce them (if she did she might have gone to the police many years ago). If she had a diary of course...
I'm sure i'm no different from most people in being able to recall (to my mind accurately) surprising detail for events which happened many, many years ago. But there is usually a level of extra deduction to be carried out to work out when they happen (even working out the year is sometimes difficult enough).
In some ways the best defence for Kavanaugh might have been that the event might have happened but it was a case of misremembered/mistaken identity. This has been somewhat undermined by the other individuals coming forward suggesting this was no so far fetched from a pattern of his behaviour at the time.
Comments
Frankly, no I don't realise it's a joke coming from the source it did, and I doubt it is. It's, to me at least, yet another smug barb, and I pride myself on having a pretty good sense of the absurd. Most of the time.
Yes, William can be a little monomaniacal at times, but there are plenty on the 'other' side who are too.
If the the EU stand their ground and reject Chequers again then what should be our Plan B?
May's plan no deal or Hunt, Gove, Javid and Raab saying Canada?
https://mail.aol.com/webmail/getPart?uid=30993820&partId=2&scope=STANDARD&saveAs=IMG_0437.JPG
I think this is the only way forward now because the EU simply don't believe May won't cave in and give them everything they want. But even if she does, the DUP and ERG will vote it down.
It would be a lot better for the country if we just walked away now and prepared for no deal and the negotiations that will follow rather than go through this mess any longer.
No deal isn't an option because of N Ireland too and that applies to the EU too and a whole host of other reasons.
So when you eliminate the impossible, all that remains however improbable is either EEA or Canada. As the EU said on day 1.
If she negotiates Canada fine but it is clear that it will not happen
TM deal will be the only option
If the EU won't agree to it then what is the fallback? She's claiming no deal. Hunt, Javid, Raab and Gove say Canada is better than no deal. So what do you think?
Happy birthday Mr L.
Everyone seems to have a strong opinion of what is and is not impossible, and it seems to disagree with everyone else's such opinion.
Nothing else Parliament does will make any difference.
I pay little attention to US politics apart from hoping Trump clears off but I would appreciate someone explaining to me why this threatens Trump's presidency
It doesn't threaten Trump's presidency it does threaten what would be his "greatest" achievement. Had Hillary won she could have appointed a liberal to replace a staunch conservative on the Supreme Court (though would have had to pick a moderate to get past the Senate). A 5-4 conservative majority with a moderate swing conservative justice would have been a 5-4 liberal majority with some moderate swing liberal justices.
Trump got to replace the staunch conservative with another staunch conservative. That didn't really change the balance and was a missed opportunity for liberals.
Now though the moderate conservative is retiring. Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative. He's young too. The conservatives would have 5 staunch conservatives on the bench, almost all youngish. They would control the Supreme Court potentially for decades.
If Kavanaugh falls, then the Democrats may win enough Senators in November to prevent a staunch conservative being approved.
Extraordinary.
JAXA have released more images of the surface of asteroid Ryugu. Quite amazing pics - though I haven't seen any sign of the Clangers yet ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45667350
Later evidence proved she'd been telling the truth.
On the matter at hand, I'd be somewhat surprised if he ends up getting confirmed, but we'll see.
Independent, Times and others all carrying the same line too.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-cabinet-support-canada-deal-eu-theresa-may-chequers-a8551721.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-losing-cabinet-support-for-no-deal-brexit-if-eu-talks-fail-9svwlwztx
What's Plan B?
I do understand that some will be annoyed or angry but TM deal is the only one in town and if it fails no deal is a possibility but more likely the question will go to the public. Remain or leave
At the time of the alleged assault, they were both already in the Senate.
Also Mrs C, in legal terms, a u-turn would be entirely legitimate. But it would create absolutely massive ructions.
Canada went in the last 24 hours
It is worth noting in passing that if the ECJ does rule that A50 can be unilaterally revoked, there'd still need to be another Act passed by Westminster as the one used by May to invoke A50 grants only that power. Given the court case that led to the Act, it follows that the government couldn't use inherent executive powers to override that explicitly conferred by parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain
There is also the case of Peter Falconio. His girlfriend Joanna Lees survived the attempted kidnapping, but the Australian media ripped the sh*t out of her because she as not emotional enough. She was treated abominably by some of their media. The truth came out later utterly clearing her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Peter_Falconio
Anyway "incomplete" is in the eye of the beholder. I felt sufficiently complete from 43 years of experience. What has come to light since about the EU bloody mindedness has merely confirmed my view.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/06/30/trumps-big-deal-the-supreme-court/
So, how exactly can HofC prevent No Deal, given that we leave in March?
Sorry if the answer is obvious.
Or because Amber Rudd opposed it?
Or because it emerges the majority of the cabinet now back it as Plan B?
I trust the cabinet.
"Opening statements and first questions are complete. Thus far, Dr. Ford has struck me as intelligent, in control, and serious. It's impossible to know if she's telling the truth, but she has not come across as a liar."
Conversely, some people who appear to be grieving are liars. I remember one man weeping and wailing after the murder of his wife, who had in fact done the job.
No Deal may create absolutely massive ructions Mr Dancer. You pays your money and you takes your choice .....
Of course no politician could use the word *gn*r*nc* to describe the referendum result but the academic theory is robust to warrant a second referendum (I am still undecided if I want one or not; my instinct is no and to wait for a UK fudge).
Conservatives: 41% (down 1 compared to ICM two weeks before)
Labour: 40% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 9% (up 1)
Ukip: 4% (no change)
Greens: 3% (no change)
Also quite a lot on how the two parties and their leaders are seen on key issues
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/sep/27/may-faces-revolt-from-40-tory-mps-if-she-opts-for-canada-brexit-deal-rudd-says-politics-live
16:44
This is superb science. We'll learn a great deal, including about how Earth and the other planets formed, and how we might prevent one hitting Earth in the future. I can't wait for OSIRIS-REx to land on Bennu later this year.
[I may have bets on them both].
Team Corbyn are in Brussels today to meet with EU negotiators, poor planning meant they had a little taxi trouble when they realised they had no means to pay.
https://order-order.com/2018/09/27/labour-run-money/
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1045334498844561409
OSIRIS-REx stads for the "Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer" (and of course I had to look that up on Wiki). Ages ago I listened to a podcast where a team member talked about the trouble they had trying to make up its name...
I'm sure i'm no different from most people in being able to recall (to my mind accurately) surprising detail for events which happened many, many years ago. But there is usually a level of extra deduction to be carried out to work out when they happen (even working out the year is sometimes difficult enough).
In some ways the best defence for Kavanaugh might have been that the event might have happened but it was a case of misremembered/mistaken identity. This has been somewhat undermined by the other individuals coming forward suggesting this was no so far fetched from a pattern of his behaviour at the time.