Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Geoffrey Cox for next CON leader? He’s head and shoulders abov
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Geoffrey Cox for next CON leader? He’s head and shoulders above the rest
These are quite extraordinary times and one of the “stars” to have emerged has been the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox – someone who first came to many people’s attention when he introduced TMay at October’s CON conference.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Try again.
These days being able to string a few coherent sentences together without making your audience fall asleep makes you a "star".
In the land of the blind etc......
As I've said many times passim, I reckon the next Conservative leader will be one of the ones who is little-known to the public, and certainty not someone who has openly coveted the job.
Cox would certainly fit that bill.
As others may be as clueless about him as I am, here's his wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Cox_(British_politician)
The Advocate Generals ruling also clearly boosts Remainers and the chance of EUref2 and no Brexit at all if Parliament rejects the Deal May has negotiated
Imagine being one the finest legal minds in the country and having your fate in the hands of Andrea Leadsom.
A contempt charge and lying to Parliament are not auspicious blots on your record when looking to become PM.
This is what is particularly winding up MPs on all sides of the House.
As much as they like and respect Geoffrey Cox, they don't care about his personal, political opinion half as much as what he *actually said* in his legal advice as AG.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1069943513599672321
Michael Gove for me though. Not saying that he will be, he's badly handicapped by being Michael Gove, just that he should be.
How many MPs would take the trouble to read the full legal advice if they had it?
Tory members will demand a Canada+ or No Deal Brexit true believer like Boris or Davis.
Cox's best chance is probably if the Deal succeeds
Pub?
Arguing a weak case quite well might mean he has substance but who knows really.
But I think the Tories need to take a gamble rather than the same old same old.
Yet it does you no favours.
Passim is almost always redundant in this context.
Maybe 10%?
Ahem.
To be clear it looks like contempt to me and I don't think there's any evidence yet that Cox is good or terrible.
50/1 is no doubt a great price, given the state of mind of the current Conservative party.
12:30-7pm: Contempt motion
7pm-8:45pm: Grieve procedural motion
8:45pm-4:45am: The *first day* of debate on the meaningful vote.
BREXIT HAS MADE EVERYONE STUPID.
It's wrong that so much attention is focused on the writer of the advice.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en
The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.
As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.
I have everything crossed for her.
He says "As the United Kingdom Parliament has to give its final approval, both if a withdrawal agreement is reached and in the absence of that agreement, several members of that parliament consider that if the notice of the intention to withdraw were revocable, this would open a third way, namely remaining in the European Union in the face of an unsatisfactory Brexit."
It is not the case that the UK Parliament has to give its final approval in the absence of an agreement. It is entirely possible, even if many view it as undesirable, that the UK could leave with no further involvement of Parliament at all.
More than 500 children in London have had emergency measles vaccinations to stop an outbreak of the disease among strictly orthodox Jews.
More than 60 cases have been reported since the beginning of October. The patients had not been immunised and most were Haredi Jews from Hackney and Haringey.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israeli-measles-epidemic-hits-uk-3wmcngcw6
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1069951862126858241?s=19
Edit: hmm - they are white, however, which gives them back 20pts.
Fortunately for the A-G, I do not think it is necessary to support the conclusion on admissibility.
The situation is very different from the manufactured disputes which form the backbone of CJEU jurisprudence in this area.
When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows the unilateral revocation of that notification, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.
That's about has hard a loss for the government as it gets.
The question itself was People's vote v the EU, and the People's vote won over the A-G.
I do not think it is, as an opinion, so well crafted as to make the actual decision null though.
Perhaps MaysMplan is to take the meaningless vote. Lose the vote. And announce that it has been carried.
"the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union."
Combined with article 155
"Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first."
So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
It was me. This word cloud is definitely a fake.
Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.
Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).
If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.
I can't see it myself.
Since there was actually an incredibly important question of international constitutional law at stake here, this bone-headed position effectively denuded the government of the opportunity to make any substantial representations on the question at hand.
Dolts.
It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.
That said, I think it's a good tip from Mike. The cabinet is not overflowing with talent and Cox is not readily identified with any faction, which is always an advantage - and would be a *huge* advantage were a consensus leader needed in extreme circumstances, such as the government having just lost a VoNC.
ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.
A potential PM needs the support of MPs. Hunt and Mordaunt are clearly* far above the rest in this regard.
*In accordance with the sound principles guided by Morris Dancer's wallet.
If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.
http://d20u174ifpwkls.cloudfront.net/st-neots/files/2013/02/51050411137-538x525.jpg
I wish the Tories would just *** & Go!
Say, we revoke on 28th March. Government falls. New election with the Tories being controlled by the ERG and they win an election on the basis they were re-submitt Art50.
Then i think the 'new' claim would be valid, as there was no linkage between the first removal and the second notifiation.
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1068570837459050496
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46440529
The A-G seems to think the abuse could never be on the 28th, even though, in those circumstances the UK should surely be 'out' not in.