I'm not sure that being able to revoke Art 50 makes any difference.
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
What do you think would happen if the reverse happened? If Remain had won and Cameron's successor had said ... "F*ck it, we have to take account of the dissenting voices who are more worthy, so we're leaving anyway."
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
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.
Surely it would be more likely to be fake if it didn't encompass leavers mis-spelling 'immigration'?
... but twice?
I am not saying the words weren't all taken from Leave voting respondents. I am not saying immigration wasn't the most often mentioned topic. But the relative sizing of the words is totally unconvincing, which leads me to believe the relative size of 'immigration' is most likely exaggerated (compared with, for example, money or bureaucracy).
The word cloud is fake, no question. The BES should be ashamed to have published it.
That's a bit tin-foil-hat. One is imigration and the other is migration, at least as far as I can untangle the blur.
Mmmm... having looked again I think you may be right. *red face* (Though find it strange that Whilst 'immigration' dominates, 'migration' is in a smaller font than 'best' and 'want' for example.)
It's a rubbish word cloud: if you're going to include 'etc', where's the huge 'A' and the very big 'The'?
I shall never speak of it again. (Now where's that red face emoji?)
I'm not sure that being able to revoke Art 50 makes any difference.
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
What do you think would happen if the reverse happened? If Remain had won and Cameron's successor had said ... "F*ck it, we have to take account of the dissenting voices who are more worthy, so we're leaving anyway."
I think, faced with a cliff edge no deal scenario, it becomes much more likely.
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
It's appears 17m people don't matter now.
Just let this rotten Parliament keep digging...
What about the 29m voters who didn't vote to leave?
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
It's appears 17m people don't matter now.
Just let this rotten Parliament keep digging...
What about the 29m voters who didn't vote to leave?
What about the 30 million voters who did not vote to remain.
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
It's appears 17m people don't matter now.
Just let this rotten Parliament keep digging...
Are you talking about 16m + The one's who couldn't be bothered?
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
It's appears 17m people don't matter now.
Just let this rotten Parliament keep digging...
I honestly don't think the bulk or remainers or leavers expect anything other than Brexit to go ahead. There is the 20% of the public fully engaged with politics who will be reading today's developments with interest but for the rest it will hardly register.
If parliament overturned Brexit it would be such a sharp jolt to the majority who expect it to happen that the only outcome would be complete chaos far beyond the worst kind of no deal. That is the game some arch remain MPs are playing, though I certainly think the Brexiters have a much firmer legal standing to ensure Brexit does get pushed through than Remainers do to ensure it is cancelled.
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
It's appears 17m people don't matter now.
Just let this rotten Parliament keep digging...
What about the 29m voters who didn't vote to leave?
What about the 30 million voters who did not vote to remain.
If you don't vote, you don't count. Abstainers, by not voting, delegate the decision to those who can be bothered.
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
It's appears 17m people don't matter now.
Just let this rotten Parliament keep digging...
Are you talking about 16m + The one's who couldn't be bothered?
Yes indeed. The ones who were so outraged at the EU that they couldn't be bothered to vote to Leave.
But look, to save a long argument:
Leave won; I think we should Leave; May's deal seems the best approach; I suspect the A50 revocation news will only help her win the MV.
Peronally I think a quick 3-way ref (No Deal v May's Deal v Remain) is the way to go now that we know all 3 are legally viable.
That gerrymanders for remain.
What I favour (if we have to have one) is the following binary:
Which of the following is MOST important to you. Tick only one box.
- That the UK be a prosperous and influential nation. - That the UK be free of Brussels.
Then if it's a clear win (minimum 60/40) for the UK being a PAIN we Remain.
If it's at least 60/40 the other way, that we be FOB, we do a Brexit that's so hard you wouldn't believe.
Any other result we exit with Theresa's deal.
I just don't see a flaw in that. Plus it could be done very quickly because there would be no need to have a campaign period. Just ask the people. Ask them.
I'm not sure that being able to revoke Art 50 makes any difference.
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
It is more likely that they will say "We tried to implement Brexit as instructed in the referendum, but no one would back it. Sorry.... but we are done here"
A strategically placed fishing net would put an end to their capers as they float by out of control with a fouled prop and rudder. We could even magnanimously offer the use of a tug to assist and it could belt out the sound of Basil Fawlty laughing maniacally whilst towing them back
I'm not sure that being able to revoke Art 50 makes any difference.
If confirmed by the judgment, and if there were a referendum, it could make a big difference to the arguments.
If the UK needed the unanimous approval of the other countries to revoke Brexit, that would have raised the question of concessions over our future terms of membership, which could have been a powerful argument against voting to remain.
Mr. Pointer, F1 drivers sometimes have great excuses. The wind, which obviously doesn't affect any of the other cars, changing conditions, lack of running in practice, bad luck, bad set of tyres, traffic, debris on the track etc etc.
Speaking of which, going to put up a 2018 driver comparison post on Saturday (team by team). Some battles are closer than one might expect.
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.
You are fond of using this quasi-intellectual Latin.
Yet it does you no favours.
Passim is almost always redundant in this context.
Why are you obsessed with the posting style of other posters? Its not as if there isn't lots of actual politics going on at the moment.
Not that I'd expect a banality-wallah like you to understand, but the defence of plain English is a noble pursuit. The cliche-ridden, showy-offy, meme-ridden cesspit that is PB needs setting straight once in a while.
A Met Police officer who knocked a teenager off a moped while employing a new ramming tactic could face criminal charges.
A file of evidence gathered by the police watchdog is to be passed to prosecutors and Scotland Yard. If he is prosecuted, the officer could be charged with actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm.
The Met could also decide if there is a case to answer for misconduct, which could result in dismissal.
I'm not sure that being able to revoke Art 50 makes any difference.
If confirmed by the judgment, and if there were a referendum, it could make a big difference to the arguments.
If the UK needed the unanimous approval of the other countries to revoke Brexit, that would have raised the question of concessions over our future terms of membership, which could have been a powerful argument against voting to remain.
Yes, and also it would remove the doubt that the Remain option might not be available at all (for example if some minor player decided to veto it), and therefore be potentially chaotic.
A Met Police officer who knocked a teenager off a moped while employing a new ramming tactic could face criminal charges.
A file of evidence gathered by the police watchdog is to be passed to prosecutors and Scotland Yard. If he is prosecuted, the officer could be charged with actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm.
The Met could also decide if there is a case to answer for misconduct, which could result in dismissal.
Of course the youth in question was just pottering along on the way home from college and never done wrong in his life...
The boy later pleaded guilty to five offences at the youth court, including theft, dangerous driving, and driving without a licence.
Seems fair enough.
Just because someone is a criminal piece of scum, does not mean the police can perform acts that could injure or kill them when no-one else is being threatened.
IMO a couple of the incidents in those videos went over the line - unless there was context we weren't shown.
I just don't see a flaw in that. Plus it could be done very quickly because there would be no need to have a campaign period. Just ask the people. Ask them.
Or alternatively, with the crisis approaching and the new EU ruling, if May's Deal fails, just rescind Brexit. It is the fastest option. No need for all the months of prep that would be needed for a referendum.
There may well be fall-out, but that will be for later.
A Met Police officer who knocked a teenager off a moped while employing a new ramming tactic could face criminal charges.
A file of evidence gathered by the police watchdog is to be passed to prosecutors and Scotland Yard. If he is prosecuted, the officer could be charged with actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm.
The Met could also decide if there is a case to answer for misconduct, which could result in dismissal.
Of course the youth in question was just pottering along on the way home from college and never done wrong in his life...
The boy later pleaded guilty to five offences at the youth court, including theft, dangerous driving, and driving without a licence.
It is quite right that the police are held to account if they use excessive force in the course of their duties, even if their actions result in an arrest. That's quite a big 'if' though: the principle of proportionality applies throughout.
The news report is riven through with conditionality: "could" this, "could", "if" this, "if" that. Let's wait and see what's done before being too critical.
Nothing said about herd immunity is an argument for mass use of a particular vaccine that is being flogged and heavily promoted by a particular pharmaceutical company and getting "What they said"-ed by the medical fraternity. "Herd immunity is good" does not imply "this vaccine is good".
So now we’ll see how good the Labour whipping operation is.
"some Labour MP s aren't around today "
They’re bloody useless!
To be fair it depends which ones I guess, if the most avid Labour Leavers have decided to give today a miss thats probably better than them voting with the government.
Just popped up on my Facebook page, something from the Metro to the effect that because we IMPORT most of our cod and haddock the price of fish and ships is likely to rise.
Our fishermen appafently catch mackerel, langoustine and scallops.
Can't see scallops being a reasonable swap for cod in fish and chips!
Assuming the government loses the main motion by a similar margin, what is the significance of it?
Well, that depends a bit on what action the Speaker then takes, and who in particular he finds in contempt. Presumably the full advice will have to be published: personally I think this is utterly misguided but it is for Parliament to decide.
Text of the motion currently being voted on: That this House finds ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the attorney general to the cabinet concerning the EU withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.
Assuming the government loses the main motion by a similar margin, what is the significance of it?
Well, that depends a bit on what action the Speaker then takes, and who in particular he finds in contempt. Presumably the full advice will have to be published: personally I think this is utterly misguided but it is for Parliament to decide.
In the first place the Serjeant-at-Arms will be ordered to march Cox to his office and retrieve the documents as requested.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
I have never seen a journalist so far out of his depth as Peston is. Time and again he just repeats nonsense that anyone with any understanding of politics could see is nonsense.
I sometimes wonder whether there's a competition to to see what the most ridiculous thing is that they can get him to pass on is.
While normally I think that a debate between leaders should be on BBC first and foremost the BBC do seem to have come up with a ludicrous proposal. ITV's actsully sounds like a proper debate.
Assuming the government loses the main motion by a similar margin, what is the significance of it?
Two Dealers suspended from Parliament in contempt
Presumably, the House would have to pass a vote to suspend MPs?
I believe the power to hand out punishments largely resides with Mr Speaker? However, as long as Cox complies and hands over the documents requested, he'll probably get away with a dressing down. If he refuses, he'll be looking at a suspension.
Assuming the government loses the main motion by a similar margin, what is the significance of it?
As I understand it, this is basically a final warning to hand over the advice. If they do, fine. If they "persist in contempt" then a further motion can be put proposing a penalty. I don't think it's up to Bercow.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
Surely Coalition of Chaos was May's line in 2017?
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.
Comments
There has to be a will to do it. I'm not sure that telling 17 million plus voters that the referendum didn't happen because it was all a dream (as in 'Dallas') will work too well.
What do you think would happen if the reverse happened? If Remain had won and Cameron's successor had said ... "F*ck it, we have to take account of the dissenting voices who are more worthy, so we're leaving anyway."
Just let this rotten Parliament keep digging...
It's a rubbish word cloud: if you're going to include 'etc', where's the huge 'A' and the very big 'The'?
I shall never speak of it again. (Now where's that red face emoji?)
http://leparisien.fr/politique/dominique-strauss-kahn-lance-son-club-de-reflexion-03-12-2018-7960173.php
They should hold a referendum, though, and promptly, so my bet comes off.
I wonder if May will end up going to ITV? [For the debate, I mean, not as an imminent career change].
I shall start claiming someone's hacked my PB account to explain my bad hair day!
I don't defend the abuse given him by any stretch but I will call him out as a hypocrite.
If parliament overturned Brexit it would be such a sharp jolt to the majority who expect it to happen that the only outcome would be complete chaos far beyond the worst kind of no deal. That is the game some arch remain MPs are playing, though I certainly think the Brexiters have a much firmer legal standing to ensure Brexit does get pushed through than Remainers do to ensure it is cancelled.
Labour: well we're not doing it now.
Rinse, repeat ad infinitum.
But look, to save a long argument:
Leave won; I think we should Leave; May's deal seems the best approach; I suspect the A50 revocation news will only help her win the MV.
Mr. Herdson, quite (again).
What I favour (if we have to have one) is the following binary:
Which of the following is MOST important to you. Tick only one box.
- That the UK be a prosperous and influential nation.
- That the UK be free of Brussels.
Then if it's a clear win (minimum 60/40) for the UK being a PAIN we Remain.
If it's at least 60/40 the other way, that we be FOB, we do a Brexit that's so hard you wouldn't believe.
Any other result we exit with Theresa's deal.
I just don't see a flaw in that. Plus it could be done very quickly because there would be no need to have a campaign period. Just ask the people. Ask them.
If the UK needed the unanimous approval of the other countries to revoke Brexit, that would have raised the question of concessions over our future terms of membership, which could have been a powerful argument against voting to remain.
Speaking of which, going to put up a 2018 driver comparison post on Saturday (team by team). Some battles are closer than one might expect.
A file of evidence gathered by the police watchdog is to be passed to prosecutors and Scotland Yard. If he is prosecuted, the officer could be charged with actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm.
The Met could also decide if there is a case to answer for misconduct, which could result in dismissal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-46440172
Of course the youth in question was just pottering along on the way home from college and never done wrong in his life...
The boy later pleaded guilty to five offences at the youth court, including theft, dangerous driving, and driving without a licence.
Just because someone is a criminal piece of scum, does not mean the police can perform acts that could injure or kill them when no-one else is being threatened.
IMO a couple of the incidents in those videos went over the line - unless there was context we weren't shown.
There may well be fall-out, but that will be for later.
"There may well be fall-out, but that will be for later."
I suspect that's what Fidel Castro thought when he urged Kruschev to nuke Washington during the Cuba Missile crisis in 1962.
The news report is riven through with conditionality: "could" this, "could", "if" this, "if" that. Let's wait and see what's done before being too critical.
Hoping that ITV have the guts to empty-chair her. She can be represented by a useless bag of nothing.
Somehow I don't think that would go down too well.
The opposition parties have won the first vote on the government being in contempt of parliament by 311 noes to 307 ayes.
House to vote on the unamended contempt motion next.
Find out what it means to me
C O N T E M P T
Take care... ERG
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1069995463326269440
Refused to agree to a head to head debate offered by ITV
She is absolutely useless
Our fishermen appafently catch mackerel, langoustine and scallops.
Can't see scallops being a reasonable swap for cod in fish and chips!
What do we think is in it? Change of underpants?
That this House finds ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the attorney general to the cabinet concerning the EU withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.
Perhaps Amber Rudd has a prior engagement
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
I sometimes wonder whether there's a competition to to see what the most ridiculous thing is that they can get him to pass on is.
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.