David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
ECJ/ECHR mix-ups are to Brexiters what debt/deficit mix-ups are to socialists.
The word is overused, but it's truly becoming humiliating how massively the deal is going to be defeated by. The only that that might salve that wound is if May and co are proven right that the EU won't reopen things.
But since in that situation we remain it's not much a salve for plenty.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
Blaming remainers is clearly not going to fly, but theo is correct in that every ERG member could back the deal and it wouldn't pass. The DUP and remainers could see it through, ERG never could on their own.
I think there are 13 Remain Conservatives who are opposed. With 10 DUP, that would cut the government's vote to 303 if all Leavers came on board. If the Leavers did come back on board, with a few opposition MPs, that would make it a very tight result.
Yes it would be much tighter. But no dealers would never be on board, so it still wouldn't pass. Labour rebels were needed.
No Dealers have to be persuaded that they won't get No Deal.
Coming at it from scratch, I have no doubt that the government would win the vote on the deal easily. The challenge is to allow those who have announced very publicly that they don't support it to climb down without looking like complete plonkers.
That's easy, Knighthoods all round. Then they won't look like complete plonkers so much as vain, self-serving pricks, which most people assume they are anyway.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
ECJ/ECHR mix-ups are to Brexiters what debt/deficit mix-ups are to socialists.
I noticed on Channel 4 news last night Tim Martin (Wetherspoons pub chain boss) claimed twice that EU commissioners control UK Immigration. The thing that astonished me is nobody corrected him! He was factually incorrect and obviously does not understand the structures and institutions of the EU or the powers that remain with the UK Government on migrants from outside the EU. Tim Martin of course claims to be an expert on the issue but does not let the ignorance of his assertions get in the way!
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
I meant to say ECHR - a momentary slip up. But you are lying. There is no ECHR binding in the agreement.
That is true in any and all circumstances from now until the end of time
It is Remain that will make 3/4 of votes against the deal and refuse to take responsibility for it. If it was up to Leave MPs only, this deal would go through.
Responsibility for thee, not for me. That is the Remainers motto.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
ECJ/ECHR mix-ups are to Brexiters what debt/deficit mix-ups are to socialists.
I noticed on Channel 4 news last night Tim Martin (Wetherspoons pub chain boss) claimed twice that EU commissioners control UK Immigration. The thing that astonished me is nobody corrected him! He was factually incorrect and obviously does not understand the structures and institutions of the EU or the powers that remain with the UK Government on migrants from outside the EU. Tim Martin of course claims to be an expert on the issue but does not let the ignorance of his assertions get in the way!
Who is responsible for enforcement of breaches in freedom of movement?
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
I still think it is likely we Leave next March with a deal or not.
However I think the odds of another referendum with Remain on the ballot have increased substantially in the last 48 hours.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
I suspect they'll change it during the next treaty.
The other aspect of it is the Supreme Court might review the Miller case.
They thought unilateral revocation wasn't possible so that's how they came to their decision.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Sabotaging a deal to blackmail a vote into Remaining, however...
As we have seen from the latest figures, how exactly do you think we will manage to bring migration under control? No government of our time has wanted to; what makes you think they will want to in future?
Unskilled non-EU migration has been slashed. It would have been slashed further if the ECHR hadn't ruled against May's anti-trafficking laws.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidential or security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
I meant to say ECHR - a momentary slip up. But you are lying. There is no ECHR binding in the agreement.
Look at paragraph 7 of the political declaration:
The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
ECJ/ECHR mix-ups are to Brexiters what debt/deficit mix-ups are to socialists.
I noticed on Channel 4 news last night Tim Martin (Wetherspoons pub chain boss) claimed twice that EU commissioners control UK Immigration. The thing that astonished me is nobody corrected him! He was factually incorrect and obviously does not understand the structures and institutions of the EU or the powers that remain with the UK Government on migrants from outside the EU. Tim Martin of course claims to be an expert on the issue but does not let the ignorance of his assertions get in the way!
Who is responsible for enforcement of breaches in freedom of movement?
Not EU commissioners! It would be a legal process. Tim Martin is also incorrect about migrants from outside the EU to the UK being subject to EU commissioners.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
I suspect they'll change it during the next treaty.
The other aspect of it is the Supreme Court might review the Miller case.
They thought unilateral revocation wasn't possible so that's how they came to their decision.
It's common in law that when you serve notice on another person, that person is entitled to hold you to it (eg terminating a contract, or a tenancy).
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
That is true in any and all circumstances from now until the end of time
It is Remain that will make 3/4 of votes against the deal and refuse to take responsibility for it. If it was up to Leave MPs only, this deal would go through.
Responsibility for thee, not for me. That is the Remainers motto.
I'm not sure the point about Leave MPs is correct. How are you defining Leave MPs?
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
I meant to say ECHR - a momentary slip up. But you are lying. There is no ECHR binding in the agreement.
Um, para 7 of the PD?
"The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), while the Union and its Member States will remain bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which reaffirms the rights as they result in particular from the ECHR."
That is true in any and all circumstances from now until the end of time
It is Remain that will make 3/4 of votes against the deal and refuse to take responsibility for it. If it was up to Leave MPs only, this deal would go through.
Responsibility for thee, not for me. That is the Remainers motto.
So what? That's parliament for you.
You are on much firmer ground when you point out that this deal to a very great extent satisfies the demands of leavers while honouring the referendum result. A point I happen to agree with.
But MPs are not beholden to do anything they don't want to - or else each government vote on anything would be 649-1 or whatever it would be given absences and protocols, etc.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
I meant to say ECHR - a momentary slip up. But you are lying. There is no ECHR binding in the agreement.
Look at paragraph 7 of the political declaration:
The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The political declaration is not binding. And even if it was, respecting the human rights framework does not necessitate being part of the court. You lied.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
I suspect they'll change it during the next treaty.
The other aspect of it is the Supreme Court might review the Miller case.
They thought unilateral revocation wasn't possible so that's how they came to their decision.
It's common in law that when you serve notice on another person, that person is entitled to hold you to it (eg terminating a contract, or a tenancy).
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Sabotaging a deal to blackmail a vote into Remaining, however...
As we have seen from the latest figures, how exactly do you think we will manage to bring migration under control? No government of our time has wanted to; what makes you think they will want to in future?
Unskilled non-EU migration has been slashed. It would have been slashed further if the ECHR hadn't ruled against May's anti-trafficking laws.
Yes but what were the overall numbers most recently? Non-EU immigration had risen to compensate for the drop in EU immigration.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
I see an ex-student of mine has been helpful to the remainer cause, being among the "Others" in Case C-621/18 Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union i.e. where the advocate general said that Article 50 of the EU treaty allowed EU members to reverse their decision to leave the EU.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
I meant to say ECHR - a momentary slip up. But you are lying. There is no ECHR binding in the agreement.
Look at paragraph 7 of the political declaration:
The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The political declaration is not binding. And even if it was, respecting the human rights framework does not necessitate being part of the court. You lied.
Which other parts of the political declaration do you regard as optional? Ending free movement perhaps?
On the subject of monetisation, PJW selling body building products is one of the more amusing product endorsements.
Is it better than his endorsement of Brainforce?
I know love to know how much Alex Jones made out of his overpriced supplements and prepper kits etc. Many many millions I would guess.
Millions and millions.
There was a report in the Sunday Times a while back that said it was really popular because the American ad laws are very different to our own and many of the people who subscribe to Infowars are low intelligence/gullible.
Apparently the irony now is that most of those millions are being spent protecting Alex Jones and legal fees.
He's really in the doo doo because of this views that a lot of he school shootings are false flags and the kids/parents are actors.
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
The ruling seems to be based on two things.
1) The vienna conventions provide a mechanism for sovereign states to decide to derogate/withdraw from a treaty, and also allow a state to change its mind and revoke the decision to derogate/withdraw until such time as the withdrawal is completed. A50 is part of an international treaty, and therefore the vienna conventions apply.
2) The principle of ever closer union would be compromised by allowing the EU to force a state out against its will. If a member state decides it has changed its mind, not allowing A50 to be revoked amounts to forcing a member out against their will, and therefore it's not compatible with one of the founding principles of the union.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
I meant to say ECHR - a momentary slip up. But you are lying. There is no ECHR binding in the agreement.
Look at paragraph 7 of the political declaration:
The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The political declaration is not binding. And even if it was, respecting the human rights framework does not necessitate being part of the court. You lied.
I'm not sure on what level May can claim to have secured a 'deal' if the PD is regarded as not having any binding effect. I mean it's technically true, but a corollary of that is that all she has secured is a transition period, a possible extension to the transition period, and then a backstop we can't leave while the EU decide what they want to let us have. If we don't keep to the commitments made on our side in the PD, there's not a whole lot of chance the EU will keep to theirs - so following the reasoning through, if we aren't bound into the ECHR and a whole heap of other stuff, the sum total of the deal is indefinite BINO with no influence and an extra helping of Irish Sea borders.
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
The ruling seems to be based on two things.
1) The vienna conventions provide a mechanism for sovereign states to decide to derogate/withdraw from a treaty, and also allow a state to change its mind and revoke the decision to derogate/withdraw until such time as the withdrawal is completed. A50 is part of an international treaty, and therefore the vienna conventions apply.
2) The principle of ever closer union would be compromised by allowing the EU to force a state out against its will. If a member state decides it has changed its mind, not allowing A50 to be revoked amounts to forcing a member out against their will, and therefore it's not compatible with one of the founding principles of the union.
1) Should not be applicable as the EU is not a party to the Vienna Convention, IMHO.
2) If one has given notice that one wishes to leave, then I don't think one is being forced out against one's will, any more than a tenant who gives notice terminating his tenancy is being forcibly evicted.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
I suspect they'll change it during the next treaty.
The other aspect of it is the Supreme Court might review the Miller case.
They thought unilateral revocation wasn't possible so that's how they came to their decision.
It's common in law that when you serve notice on another person, that person is entitled to hold you to it (eg terminating a contract, or a tenancy).
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
I'm like the idea of a two year cooling off period.
1) Should not be applicable as the EU is not a party to the Vienna Convention, IMHO.
2) If one has given notice that one wishes to leave, then I don't think one is being forced out against one's will, any more than a tenant who gives notice terminating his tenancy is being forcibly evicted.
The ECJ is clearly minded to create new jurisprudence here, since treaty of lisbon neglects to say anything helpful at all.
Looking to the Vienna conventions for inspiration makes sense, because the TEU and TFEU are international treaties, and all EU member states are signatories to the conventions. This is the appeal to head.
The appeal to the founding principles of the union is the appeal to heart, and is what will clinch it for the ECJ.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Of course it can. It would just involve putting ourselves in a position similar to a no deal Brexit.
The difference is that it would require a parliamentary majority to do so - as opposed to the current spoiler tactics.
This has nothing to do with sovereignty, and everything to do with the more doctrinaire leavers utter inability to command, or contemplate ever commanding, a parliamentary majority.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
I suspect they'll change it during the next treaty.
The other aspect of it is the Supreme Court might review the Miller case.
They thought unilateral revocation wasn't possible so that's how they came to their decision.
It's common in law that when you serve notice on another person, that person is entitled to hold you to it (eg terminating a contract, or a tenancy).
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
I'm like the idea of a two year cooling off period.
Though it would be funny if Parliament voted to revoke A50 and the ECJ were to rule that they couldn't, without the consent of all the member States.
Big turnout for the Bush Snr funeral. First time I think Trump has been alongside all living US Presidents and also first time in decades there are more Democrat ex Presidents, Carter, Clinton and Obama than Republicans George W Bush and Trump.
John Major and Prince Charles leading the British contingent
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
I suspect they'll change it during the next treaty.
The other aspect of it is the Supreme Court might review the Miller case.
They thought unilateral revocation wasn't possible so that's how they came to their decision.
It's common in law that when you serve notice on another person, that person is entitled to hold you to it (eg terminating a contract, or a tenancy).
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
I'm like the idea of a two year cooling off period.
But is it not common to assume that in agreeing to a contract, there has been no false representation and crooked dealing? If it is shown that there has been some mal practice- as is the case here - then surely the customary legal expectations are blown sky high....
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Of course it can. It would just involve putting ourselves in a position similar to a no deal Brexit.
The difference is that it would require a parliamentary majority to do so - as opposed to the current spoiler tactics.
This has nothing to do with sovereignty, and everything to do with the more doctrinaire leavers utter inability to command, or contemplate ever commanding, a parliamentary majority.
No, worse than No Deal.
No Deal is chaotic, but it is not contrary to a Treaty.
It's like asking whether I "could" commit a crime.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
Dangerous ground.
Oh indeed. As ridiculous as it would be to have may's deal on the ballot and not no deal, I'm tending to think that is what will happen - MPs want to gamble on Remaining but not risk no deal and that is how they do that. Still problematic, excluding no deal, but better for them they do that than allow it on the ballot then ignore it again.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
Dangerous ground.
If there is a people's vote, it won't offer a no deal option.
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
I suspect they'll change it during the next treaty.
The other aspect of it is the Supreme Court might review the Miller case.
They thought unilateral revocation wasn't possible so that's how they came to their decision.
It's common in law that when you serve notice on another person, that person is entitled to hold you to it (eg terminating a contract, or a tenancy).
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
I'm like the idea of a two year cooling off period.
Though it would be funny if Parliament voted to revoke A50 and the ECJ were to rule that they couldn't, without the consent of all the member States.
Doesn't seem much chance of that, given the political angle, but it would be an, er, interesting scenario.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
Dangerous ground.
No Deal would not be on offer.
In which case, frankly a second referendum is a smokescreen. If MPs would never vote for No-deal, and reject May's deal, then the only option is remain.
If MPs reject May's deal, then what would be the point of offering it in a referendum?
But is it not common to assume that in agreeing to a contract, there has been no false representation and crooked dealing? If it is shown that there has been some mal practice- as is the case here - then surely the customary legal expectations are blown sky high....
This is politics, if we were to invalidate every election/plebiscite because there had been some false representation I think we'd be invalidating them all.
I mean even the pure and innocent Lib Dems were fined for what you would call false representations and crooked dealing?
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
Dangerous ground.
If there is a people's vote, it won't offer a no deal option.
So the vote would be for Remain, or a deal which parliment has already rejected, and logically would do so again??
David Allen Green predicted before A50 was invoked, in extraordinary detail, exactly how May would botch brexit, and so it has played out almost completely to the letter.
Green's argument was that it was easy to predict. You just have to assume she'd approach Brexit the same way she approached various Home Office crises, and imagine she'd try to apply them to the EU, and it would fall apart spectacularly.
Things like:
* having a tiny circle of advisors of questionable wisdom * not bothering to engage her party or parliament in any of her thinking * attempting to use tabloid bullying to get people to obey * repeating trite phrases in lieu of having a coherent policy * mistake being stubborn for its own sake with being "strong and stable"
etc.
He also predicted the charlatans of Leave would be found out in office as they had to deliver on their fantasies.
Where did he predict we would end up?
IIRC he said we'd Leave with no deal, Leavers would abdicate responsibility, and eventually we'd Rejoin.
More likely that Parliament will just vote to revoke A50, IMHO.
That was his opinion well before yesterday's ruling by the Advocate General.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
If the ECJ support the Advocate General, I could see that ruling causing real problems for the EU in the future.
Would any country put itself through the turmoil and conflict that the UK has for the last 2 years without significant cause.
Even if we Remain (the least bad of the options) the injury from Britain's Ratners moment is going to be long term.
In which case, frankly a second referendum is a smokescreen. If MPs would never vote for No-deal, and reject May's deal, then the only option is remain.
If MPs reject May's deal, then what would be the point of offering it in a referendum?
Quite. But a democratic smokescreen is what MPs want. They have the power to remain if that is what they want, and the majority of them very clearly do (and should have not triggered A50 then, even at the cost of their careers if they felt that strongly about it), but it's all very well talking about the will of the people changing but at the moment it is just polling, and we know that is not always on the money. Unless they are going to be honest and just say 'We, your MPs, are not going to do this because it is wrong' which most are not willing to do, they need cover for the u-turn from their manifestos.
Hence a vote as stacked to one side as they can. HYUFD is still a believer the deal would win against Remain, but with no political support for it(how many in the Cabinet and Tory loyalists will no longer back it after it loses next week?) it's a good foil against the glory that is remain.
The ultras in remain are now driving things just as ultras in leave were previously. It doesn't matter what the impacts might be, it will all work out with no problems, so long as the right decision is made. And they are totally different to Brexit ultras of course.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
Dangerous ground.
No Deal would not be on offer.
In which case, frankly a second referendum is a smokescreen. If MPs would never vote for No-deal, and reject May's deal, then the only option is remain.
If MPs reject May's deal, then what would be the point of offering it in a referendum?
To get a majority for Remain, by making it the only real option. It would be a gerrymander, it would likely inflame attitudes in the long run, but no one is thinking about the long run.
So the vote would be for Remain, or a deal which parliment has already rejected, and logically would do so again??
I can see why people think it's a stich up.
Which is why I say me must Leave with No Deal if Parliament rejects Mrs May's deal.
Remain made it very clear that No Deal was a risk of voting Leave.
And yet the dishonestvotecampaign say that no one knew it. Funny that. Not really sure why they are so certain this time people will hear all that is said.
So the vote would be for Remain, or a deal which parliment has already rejected, and logically would do so again??
I can see why people think it's a stich up.
Which is why I say me must Leave with No Deal if Parliament rejects Mrs May's deal.
Remain made it very clear that No Deal was a risk of voting Leave.
And yet the dishonestvotecampaign say that no one knew it. Funny that. Not really sure why they are so certain this time people will hear all that is said.
I know, there's plenty of polling showing Leave voters are prepared to take an economic hit which means a close family member/friend losing their job.
As I said on Sunday I'm not a fan of another referendum until after we've left.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Of course it can. It would just involve putting ourselves in a position similar to a no deal Brexit.
The difference is that it would require a parliamentary majority to do so - as opposed to the current spoiler tactics.
This has nothing to do with sovereignty, and everything to do with the more doctrinaire leavers utter inability to command, or contemplate ever commanding, a parliamentary majority.
No, worse than No Deal.
No Deal is chaotic, but it is not contrary to a Treaty.
It's like asking whether I "could" commit a crime.
Is it ? I am unconvinced. Abrogation of a treaty is not a crime, and its consequences depend very much upon the circumstances.
The circumstances of any abrogation would, presumably, be a lengthy period during which trade negotiations with the EU had broken down. Any abrogation could be planned well in advance, and practical and diplomatic steps be takento mitigate any fallout... rather unlike our current position.
So the vote would be for Remain, or a deal which parliment has already rejected, and logically would do so again??
I can see why people think it's a stich up.
Which is why I say me must Leave with No Deal if Parliament rejects Mrs May's deal.
Remain made it very clear that No Deal was a risk of voting Leave.
And yet the dishonestvotecampaign say that no one knew it. Funny that. Not really sure why they are so certain this time people will hear all that is said.
I know, there's plenty of polling showing Leave voters are prepared to take an economic hit which means a close family member/friend losing their job.
As I said on Sunday I'm not a fan of another referendum until after we've left.
This is the only principled Remain position. I admire you for holding it.
So the vote would be for Remain, or a deal which parliment has already rejected, and logically would do so again??
I can see why people think it's a stich up.
Which is why I say me must Leave with No Deal if Parliament rejects Mrs May's deal.
Remain made it very clear that No Deal was a risk of voting Leave.
Thanks to the Grieve amendment and May's statement she will adhere to Parliament if she cannot get the Deal through, she may back EUref2 as an option as a last resort and include the Deal on an AV basis which could see it win as Deltapoll proved where it was second initially but won head to head v Remain and No Deal.
Alternatively it will be SM and CU BINO. I cannot see No Deal unless it is in EUref2 and wins after the Grieve amendment won
So the vote would be for Remain, or a deal which parliment has already rejected, and logically would do so again??
I can see why people think it's a stich up.
Which is why I say me must Leave with No Deal if Parliament rejects Mrs May's deal.
Remain made it very clear that No Deal was a risk of voting Leave.
And yet the dishonestvotecampaign say that no one knew it. Funny that. Not really sure why they are so certain this time people will hear all that is said.
I know, there's plenty of polling showing Leave voters are prepared to take an economic hit which means a close family member/friend losing their job.
As I said on Sunday I'm not a fan of another referendum until after we've left.
Leaving then rejoining may have more economic pain but at least fulfills the first referendum before we get the second. But MPs want that remain so bad they cannot help themselves.
In which case, frankly a second referendum is a smokescreen. If MPs would never vote for No-deal, and reject May's deal, then the only option is remain.
If MPs reject May's deal, then what would be the point of offering it in a referendum?
Quite. But a democratic smokescreen is what MPs want. They have the power to remain if that is what they want, and the majority of them very clearly do (and should have not triggered A50 then, even at the cost of their careers if they felt that strongly about it), but it's all very well talking about the will of the people changing but at the moment it is just polling, and we know that is not always on the money. Unless they are going to be honest and just say 'We, your MPs, are not going to do this because it is wrong' which most are not willing to do, they need cover for the u-turn from their manifestos.
And, if, by some fluke, the Deal that Parliament rejected did get the support of 50%+1, MP's would still be able to vote down/amend the detailed legislation to implement it.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
Dangerous ground.
If there is a people's vote, it won't offer a no deal option.
I disagree. A second referendum before we leave would have to do so, if it were to command legitimacy.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
I think on (3) you’ve misunderstood redaction
Redaction is limiting what is disclosed by “blacking out” sensitive parts of the information. Everything that is not-redacted is released publicly
“Privy Council terms” is the full advice (not redacted) being released to privy council members (a lot of senior MPs) but with them being enjoined to keep it confidential on the pain of their tongue being torn out and lightly broiled in the juice of their spleen or some such evocative deterrent
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
Dangerous ground.
If there is a people's vote, it won't offer a no deal option.
I disagree. A second referendum before we leave would have to do so, if it were to command legitimacy.
Legitimacy is not a concern of anyone right now. If it has one exit on option and one non exit option, it will be called legitimacy.
So the vote would be for Remain, or a deal which parliment has already rejected, and logically would do so again??
I can see why people think it's a stich up.
Which is why I say me must Leave with No Deal if Parliament rejects Mrs May's deal.
Remain made it very clear that No Deal was a risk of voting Leave.
And yet the dishonestvotecampaign say that no one knew it. Funny that. Not really sure why they are so certain this time people will hear all that is said.
I know, there's plenty of polling showing Leave voters are prepared to take an economic hit which means a close family member/friend losing their job.
As I said on Sunday I'm not a fan of another referendum until after we've left.
Leaving then rejoining may have more economic pain but at least fulfills the first referendum before we get the second. But MPs want that remain so bad they cannot help themselves.
"She should literally find a sword and throw herself on it. Let’s just remember the Norwegians executed Quisling for his collaboration with the forces of German lead European Subjugation"
I've just seen this comment on Facebook. I imagine you can guess who "she" is.
And people think passing this deal will subdue extremism and bring the country together? They are deluding themselves.
Social media is full of Russian trolls. Once we bring migration under control, sign a couple of trade deals and there are no more crazy ECJ decisions affecting us on votes for prisoners etc, the extremists will struggle to gain traction.
Yet more lies. The ECJ said it's lawful to deny the vote to prisoners. It's the ECHR that said otherwise, and the Brexit deal binds us to the ECHR.
I meant to say ECHR - a momentary slip up. But you are lying. There is no ECHR binding in the agreement.
Look at paragraph 7 of the political declaration:
The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The political declaration is not binding. And even if it was, respecting the human rights framework does not necessitate being part of the court. You lied.
I'm not sure on what level May can claim to have secured a 'deal' if the PD is regarded as not having any binding effect. I mean it's technically true, but a corollary of that is that all she has secured is a transition period, a possible extension to the transition period, and then a backstop we can't leave while the EU decide what they want to let us have. If we don't keep to the commitments made on our side in the PD, there's not a whole lot of chance the EU will keep to theirs - so following the reasoning through, if we aren't bound into the ECHR and a whole heap of other stuff, the sum total of the deal is indefinite BINO with no influence and an extra helping of Irish Sea borders.
May can't claim it because it would damage negotiations, but the rest of us can point out the reality. The withdrawal agreement is not BINO. It repatriates service regulation, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, service trade and criminal justice. We should sign this and consider the next deal on its merits.
I think Cox's legal advice has achieved several things:
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
And all this malarkey came about through May's penchant for keeping everything secret, even when the "secret" is so well known it might as well be displayed in lights six feet high on the Westminster roof.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
Without the backstop there is no deal with the EU.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
And since parliament is pretty serious about no deal, remain it is.
What is dangerous without a referendum. Which is then tricky. Say 'No-deal' won, and then MPs still blocked it....
Dangerous ground.
If there is a people's vote, it won't offer a no deal option.
I disagree. A second referendum before we leave would have to do so, if it were to command legitimacy.
Legitimacy is not a concern of anyone right now. If it has one exit on option and one non exit option, it will be called legitimacy.
May can't claim it because it would damage negotiations, but the rest of us can point out the reality. The withdrawal agreement is not BINO. It repatriates service regulation, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, service trade and criminal justice. We should sign this and consider the next deal on its merits.
You've let the cat out of the bag there. When the next deal comes around and it's for full BINO, you'll suddenly start telling us why maintaining free movement and services alignment is essential for the economy.
Comments
But since in that situation we remain it's not much a salve for plenty.
students are now warming up
If he is capable of such complex mental processes as denial.
Responsibility for thee, not for me. That is the Remainers motto.
Like many he thought unilateral revocation of Article 50 wouldn't be permissible.
1) Demonstrated that the government is so terrified of Parliament and the Party's hostility to the backstop, it was prepared to risk contempt in order to stop them finding out what they almost certainly already knew.
2) The attorney was happy to, ahem, maximise the truth's cope quite considerably between what he said to Cabinet and Parliament.
3) The attorney told parliament there's no method for redacting government advice for publication. It beggars belief that Cox doesn't know what privy council terms are, so I'm going to chalk that one up to an actual direct lie to Parliament, rather than the rest of his opinion that can be charitably be called "sweetening" the truth.
4) Andrea Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is not, as most would understand it, the right to tell your attorney something and have it remain confidential. Rather Mrs Leadsom thinks that attorney-client privilege is the right of attorneys to maintain different versions of the truth for different clients, and not be called out on it.
5) There were zero confidentiality or national security concerns to releasing the advice as Mrs Leadsom indicated there "might" be.
6) Andrea Leadsom is a fucking idiot.
7) Having a great voice a la Cox doesn't stop anyone from noticing when the voice is talking utter bollocks.
However I think the odds of another referendum with Remain on the ballot have increased substantially in the last 48 hours.
https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/12/harry-redknapp-cryptocurrency-electroneum-twitter
The other aspect of it is the Supreme Court might review the Miller case.
They thought unilateral revocation wasn't possible so that's how they came to their decision.
The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-political-declaration-setting-out-the-framework-for-the-future-relationship-between-the-european-union-and-the-united-kingdom-agreed-at-negotia
It would be natural to assume that the same applied to A50.
"The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), while the Union and its Member States will remain bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which reaffirms the rights as they result in particular from the ECHR."
You are on much firmer ground when you point out that this deal to a very great extent satisfies the demands of leavers while honouring the referendum result. A point I happen to agree with.
But MPs are not beholden to do anything they don't want to - or else each government vote on anything would be 649-1 or whatever it would be given absences and protocols, etc.
THE UK CANNOT UNILATERALLY EXIT FROM THE BACKSTOP. END OF.
Ridiculous.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/03/national/sodane-japan-uses-top-buzzword-2018-end-year-high-note/
I particularly like “rice reasoning”, a term we could happily utilise over here.
There was a report in the Sunday Times a while back that said it was really popular because the American ad laws are very different to our own and many of the people who subscribe to Infowars are low intelligence/gullible.
Apparently the irony now is that most of those millions are being spent protecting Alex Jones and legal fees.
He's really in the doo doo because of this views that a lot of he school shootings are false flags and the kids/parents are actors.
1) The vienna conventions provide a mechanism for sovereign states to decide to derogate/withdraw from a treaty, and also allow a state to change its mind and revoke the decision to derogate/withdraw until such time as the withdrawal is completed. A50 is part of an international treaty, and therefore the vienna conventions apply.
2) The principle of ever closer union would be compromised by allowing the EU to force a state out against its will. If a member state decides it has changed its mind, not allowing A50 to be revoked amounts to forcing a member out against their will, and therefore it's not compatible with one of the founding principles of the union.
With the backstop there is no deal with Parliament.
2) If one has given notice that one wishes to leave, then I don't think one is being forced out against one's will, any more than a tenant who gives notice terminating his tenancy is being forcibly evicted.
Looking to the Vienna conventions for inspiration makes sense, because the TEU and TFEU are international treaties, and all EU member states are signatories to the conventions. This is the appeal to head.
The appeal to the founding principles of the union is the appeal to heart, and is what will clinch it for the ECJ.
The difference is that it would require a parliamentary majority to do so - as opposed to the current spoiler tactics.
This has nothing to do with sovereignty, and everything to do with the more doctrinaire leavers utter inability to command, or contemplate ever commanding, a parliamentary majority.
Dangerous ground.
John Major and Prince Charles leading the British contingent
No Deal is chaotic, but it is not contrary to a Treaty.
It's like asking whether I "could" commit a crime.
"You're out"
"No we're not"
If MPs reject May's deal, then what would be the point of offering it in a referendum?
I mean even the pure and innocent Lib Dems were fined for what you would call false representations and crooked dealing?
https://news.sky.com/story/liberal-democrats-fined-18000-over-eu-referendum-campaign-breaches-11177197
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/lib-dems-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending
I can see why people think it's a stich up.
Even if we Remain (the least bad of the options) the injury from Britain's Ratners moment is going to be long term.
Hence a vote as stacked to one side as they can. HYUFD is still a believer the deal would win against Remain, but with no political support for it(how many in the Cabinet and Tory loyalists will no longer back it after it loses next week?) it's a good foil against the glory that is remain.
The ultras in remain are now driving things just as ultras in leave were previously. It doesn't matter what the impacts might be, it will all work out with no problems, so long as the right decision is made. And they are totally different to Brexit ultras of course.
Remain made it very clear that No Deal was a risk of voting Leave.
As I said on Sunday I'm not a fan of another referendum until after we've left.
Abrogation of a treaty is not a crime, and its consequences depend very much upon the circumstances.
The circumstances of any abrogation would, presumably, be a lengthy period during which trade negotiations with the EU had broken down. Any abrogation could be planned well in advance, and practical and diplomatic steps be takento mitigate any fallout... rather unlike our current position.
Alternatively it will be SM and CU BINO. I cannot see No Deal unless it is in EUref2 and wins after the Grieve amendment won
Redaction is limiting what is disclosed by “blacking out” sensitive parts of the information. Everything that is not-redacted is released publicly
“Privy Council terms” is the full advice (not redacted) being released to privy council members (a lot of senior MPs) but with them being enjoined to keep it confidential on the pain of their tongue being torn out and lightly broiled in the juice of their spleen or some such evocative deterrent