Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So TMay wins 200 to 117 – but is the margin enough?

124

Comments

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,915

    The polling on this over the next few days and the weekend will be fascinating

    Given the polling dips that occurred after Chequers and then, IIRC, right after the WA (which then returned to about where they were), I would think a bit of a drop as some angry anti-mayites register discontent.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,508
    Scott_P said:

    So nothing has changed.

    The only options are

    1. this deal
    2. no deal
    3. no Brexit

    No deal is probably favourite because it is the default, but May might revoke Article 50 before it happens.

    Which means no Brexit

    This deal is least likely. Nobody likes it, although it is the only practical form of Brexit available.

    Assuming the deal crashes and burns in the HoC, if Labour win a VONC and an election beckons, what does each party put in the manifesto?

    Are Labour pro-Brexit or not?

    Can the Tories write a single manifesto they can all stand on?

    Do the Lib Dems matter?

    These are interesting and relevant questions and this is an excellent post. Only question we can answer with any confidence is the Lib Dem one. To which the answer is obviously no.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,927

    BBC at 10pm reporting some sort of fudging on the backstop is being put together by the EU.

    I’ll believe that when I see it. Any changes need to be to the actual withdrawal agreement treaty if its to stand any chance of passing Parliament. Not to the meanless political declaration that sits alongside it.
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578

    Expect a deal with Labour to be cut over Christmas such that they abstain in the MV vote in January 'in the greater national interest'... with, coincidentally, a GE offered for after Brexit day and May to step down having completed her mission.

    The Cons will think they have a good chance in a Spring GE with Brexit (ok BINO) delivered and a new leader.

    Labour (leadership) have convinced themselves they can't possibly lose a GE.

    So everyone will support it.

    That is a bigger fantasy than a successful Brexit. The chances of Labour helping May's deal through are nil.

    Nobody would trust May to keep her word on any such deal were it to be offered, which it won't be. And for most Labour members, Corbyn particularly, doing any form of deal about anything with the Tories would be anathema.
    So how will events pan out then?
    Mays deal will never come back to the Commons because there will never be enough support for it. It died the moment Raab resigned and nothing can now be done to resurrect it. Tonight's vote shows that it could command at most 200 Tories and a very small handful of opposition members. So we will drift forward whilst May fiddles around pretending that she can come up with a few tweaks that will miraculously make it acceptable until early next year when people will begin to realise that the cliff edge is real and we are careering toward it without anyone in the driving seat. Then there will be panic and demands for a second referendum will become irresistible. Labour, and a significant number of Tories, will swing behind the idea. Parliament will revoke Article 50 and call a second referendum which will result in a vote to remain.
    Well, I'd jump at that outcome. Just not sure who would table the bills to revoke A50 and hold a referendum in that scenario? TMay?
    If the commons passed a motion in favour of revokation or a referendum the government could not ignore it - they would have to table legislation. And I'm sure the key players - Grieve, Starmer, Bercow, etc will make sure parliament gets a chance to vote on such a motion.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,915
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Is it possible to raise an amendment to the MV which would make it's approval conditional on it gaining support at a referendum?

    I am fairly confident this will happen and of course if it becomes tbe meaningful vote, TM can simpy say the HOC have voted for a referendum and she will put down tbe legislation. The irony is that ERG have blown their 48 letters now, rather than keeping their powder dry.
    The one thing they do not deserve being criticised for is 'blowing' their letters now. If this is about principle the line was crossed for them a long time ago and they had to put them in to register their discontent, otherwise, well, you get the situation we have now where it is probably too late to change direction but also we cannot move forward.
    The final straw for many, after the original draft backstop, the EU draft backstop, the Chequers suggestion and then the final WA, was when the Parliamentary vote got pulled. She should have let it run and taken the 200 vote defeat, using that to extract concessions from the EU.

    That she pulled the vote (then flew around Europe being told to f.off) looked like it was more about her own self-preservation than getting the best deal in the national interest.
    I agree, and she lost much of what respect I had for her in doing that. I even thought that might swing some of the waverers, but if it did not by as much as I thought.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,865

    What I still don’t understand is how May and her team, and the EU cannot see that the backstop is an affront to natural justice. It is kafkaesque to be signed up to a legal agreement before a negotiation where you cannot leave unless both parties agree, and the only time the legal agreement would come into force is if you are in disagreement!

    Well the EU wants Northern Ireland to be the price we pay for daring to leave the EU - What HMG is playing at going along with it though I don't know.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oort said:

    Hilariously lukewarm words from Philip Hammond, written with how much conviction? :smile:

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1072962492605890562

    I'll let you into a little secret.

    Most ministers do not write their own tweets.

    They are written and published by an adviser.
    Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
    If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
    I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.

    Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
    Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.

    It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
    Siri, another crap Apple product....
    Am not keen on Siri.

    It struggles with my working class Yorkshire accent.
    So just use your normal voice instead then, problem solved!
    That is my normal voice.
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    It's probably representative of a majority in the country tbf.
    I think so. I reckon it has percolated through to the average voter, finally, that Brexit is REALLY REALLY FUCKING DIFFICULT TO DO. And this awkward, clumsy, rather embarrassing, but fairly clever and sincerely honest woman is doing her best to deliver it.

    Remainers have nowhere else to go, Leavers must grudgingly suck it up.

    She will deliver a pisspoor soggy Brexit, but likely it's the best we can do for now. Nothing is forever and we can do something better, later. Let her do her boring job.

    I think that is the mind-set of Middle Britain, as of this evening.


    Bloody hell - we really are in uncharted waters - I agree with every word of that post!

    Never saw that coming :wink:
    If there were no indefinite backstop I could agree. I’m not bothered about money or limited CJEU jurisdiction. But the backstop is unjust.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    GIN1138 said:

    MaxPB said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    He's probably representative of the view of a majority in the country tbf.

    Edit: but hang on a minute - what were you doing in a cab? I thought you were an Uber-mensch?
    Yes, I think so. Tory MPs who don't vote for the deal are opening the door to remain or no deal
    May's deal IS Remain?
    No it's not.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    BBC at 10pm reporting some sort of fudging on the backstop is being put together by the EU.

    No change to the WA

    Some fudge in political statement
    Why is Corbyn hesitating?
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    edited December 2018

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oort said:

    Hilariously lukewarm words from Philip Hammond, written with how much conviction? :smile:

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1072962492605890562

    I'll let you into a little secret.

    Most ministers do not write their own tweets.

    They are written and published by an adviser.
    Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
    If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
    I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.

    Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
    Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.

    It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
    Siri, another crap Apple product....
    Am not keen on Siri.

    It struggles with my working class Yorkshire accent.
    To be fair, all the voice assistants are shit. Just some are shitter than others. Kinda of like current political situation.
    Google is reasonably decent at some voice controls to be used handsfree while driving. Eg changing destination on the satnav or changing music. Or setting an alarm or reminder.

    Don't really use a voice assistant for anything else.
    Google have the best tech, but all of them are limited to specific settings and wants commands in particular format. I just find it way easier to click buttons.
    Most voice tech is a pointless gimmick. My Siri use is limited to asking it the time in other countries, one of the very few jobs it is actually quicker to do than using a keyboard.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,821
    Pro_Rata said:

    Is trying to coincide post 1000 with the result:

    177:138

    Family life happened, I was content to Bradman my 1000 for a little time.

    My thoughts.

    - The numbers pretty much reflect May's strength before today, they neither strengthen nor particularly weaken her.
    - Likewise, the 117 voting against her is pretty close to the 114 declared against the deal. I suspect 90%+ overlap.
    - That means very, very few pro deal Tories decided that her time was up. The 12 months she cannot be challenged is massively beyond the current Tory event horizon.
    - Since May dismissed all the alternative Brexit plan Bs pretty comprehensively the other day, she is still the deal and now the deal is her, with whatever minor tweaks there may be.
    - 198 Tories better step up and start shouting for the deal they have now voted for. It can't all be down to Theresa and Rory.
    - The deal will endure as the option of choice into March, parliamentary VoNC allowing. Parliament may ultimately be handed the weaponry to finish it off, but not a moment before it is absolutely essential. The deal will not die at May's hand.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    It's probably representative of a majority in the country tbf.
    I think so. I reckon it has percolated through to the average voter, finally, that Brexit is REALLY REALLY FUCKING DIFFICULT TO DO. And this awkward, clumsy, rather embarrassing, but fairly clever and sincerely honest woman is doing her best to deliver it.

    Remainers have nowhere else to go, Leavers must grudgingly suck it up.

    She will deliver a pisspoor soggy Brexit, but likely it's the best we can do for now. Nothing is forever and we can do something better, later. Let her do her boring job.

    I think that is the mind-set of Middle Britain, as of this evening.


    Bloody hell - we really are in uncharted waters - I agree with every word of that post!

    Never saw that coming :wink:
    If there were no indefinite backstop I could agree. I’m not bothered about money or limited CJEU jurisdiction. But the backstop is unjust.
    What a pity it was that the UK was the one who suggested it....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited December 2018
    Sandpit said:

    BBC at 10pm reporting some sort of fudging on the backstop is being put together by the EU.

    I’ll believe that when I see it. Any changes need to be to the actual withdrawal agreement treaty if its to stand any chance of passing Parliament. Not to the meanless political declaration that sits alongside it.
    I don’t know f you heard it, but it was basically a statement that should no trade deal agreed by end of time they intend to continue to negotiate...basically means nothing given the EU have in the past spent decades talking over deals.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,547
    edited December 2018

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    ERG have the whip hand because the default is no deal.

    Correct.
    It always amazes me that the obvious "no deal is default" fact evades so many
    Nearly as bad former Brexit Secretary David Davis thinking we still get a transition deal in the event of No Deal.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610

    BBC at 10pm reporting some sort of fudging on the backstop is being put together by the EU.

    That's not a big surprise, I think it may finally have dawned on the EU that they lose a lot from no deal and the backstop will result in no deal by default.
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    Everything is piss and wind until the House gets to vote on the deal. It's just a holding pattern till that happens. And May has absolutely no incentive now to do that quickly.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,744
    edited December 2018

    What I still don’t understand is how May and her team, and the EU cannot see that the backstop is an affront to natural justice. It is kafkaesque to be signed up to a legal agreement before a negotiation where you cannot leave unless both parties agree, and the only time the legal agreement would come into force is if you are in disagreement!

    What I don't understand is why the backstop isn't being recognised as a tremendous place to be for the UK: full access to the CU, no FoM, no fees!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,915
    Scott_P said:

    So nothing has changed.

    The only options are

    1. this deal
    2. no deal
    3. no Brexit

    No deal is probably favourite because it is the default, but May might revoke Article 50 before it happens.

    Which means no Brexit

    This deal is least likely. Nobody likes it, although it is the only practical form of Brexit available.

    Assuming the deal crashes and burns in the HoC, if Labour win a VONC and an election beckons, what does each party put in the manifesto?

    Are Labour pro-Brexit or not?

    Can the Tories write a single manifesto they can all stand on?

    Do the Lib Dems matter?


    I think Labour will be intensely pressured on that question, as it is clear the leadership's preference would be to continue to sell the line that they will seek to renegotiate but keep all options open, so they can appeal to leavers and remainers. But would they ask for an extension? How long for? At what point would they conclude if what they got was worth it or that remaining had to be considered? Would that then be put in a referendum?

    The Tories...would be in a complete mess. I don't see how they could stand as a unified force behind any leader - best case scenario in terms of party unity they fall behind 'managed no deal' but that would still lose them several MPs who would refuse to stand on that basis surely?

    The LDs, they probably don't matter, unless Labour really mess up.
  • Options

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    It's probably representative of a majority in the country tbf.
    I think so. I reckon it has percolated through to the average voter, finally, that Brexit is REALLY REALLY FUCKING DIFFICULT TO DO. And this awkward, clumsy, rather embarrassing, but fairly clever and sincerely honest woman is doing her best to deliver it.

    Remainers have nowhere else to go, Leavers must grudgingly suck it up.

    She will deliver a pisspoor soggy Brexit, but likely it's the best we can do for now. Nothing is forever and we can do something better, later. Let her do her boring job.

    I think that is the mind-set of Middle Britain, as of this evening.


    Bloody hell - we really are in uncharted waters - I agree with every word of that post!

    Never saw that coming :wink:
    If there were no indefinite backstop I could agree. I’m not bothered about money or limited CJEU jurisdiction. But the backstop is unjust.
    Agreed.
  • Options
    Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Foxy said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    He is going to be disappointed. This May Deal that he clings to is just the overture. The main section hasn't even started, and the same dynamic will apply over Ireland and Customs Union, whether Deal or No Deal. We have years of this to go.
    Once we have officially left then the continuity remain campaign will transform into a rejoin campaign, which will be a lot smaller...
  • Options
    sladeslade Posts: 1,933
    Anazina said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oort said:

    Hilariously lukewarm words from Philip Hammond, written with how much conviction? :smile:

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1072962492605890562

    I'll let you into a little secret.

    Most ministers do not write their own tweets.

    They are written and published by an adviser.
    Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
    If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
    I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.

    Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
    Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.

    It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
    Siri, another crap Apple product....
    Am not keen on Siri.

    It struggles with my working class Yorkshire accent.
    To be fair, all the voice assistants are shit. Just some are shitter than others. Kinda of like current political situation.
    Google is reasonably decent at some voice controls to be used handsfree while driving. Eg changing destination on the satnav or changing music. Or setting an alarm or reminder.

    Don't really use a voice assistant for anything else.
    Google have the best tech, but all of them are limited to specific settings and wants commands in particular format. I just find it way easier to click buttons.
    Most voice tech is a pointless gimmick. My Siri use is limited to asking it the time in other countries, one of the very few jobs it is actually quicker to do than using a keyboard.
    My Alexa has trouble with Dvorak - it keeps giving me Jack ( who he?)
  • Options
    Anazina said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oort said:

    Hilariously lukewarm words from Philip Hammond, written with how much conviction? :smile:

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1072962492605890562

    I'll let you into a little secret.

    Most ministers do not write their own tweets.

    They are written and published by an adviser.
    Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
    If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
    I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.

    Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
    Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.

    It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
    Siri, another crap Apple product....
    Am not keen on Siri.

    It struggles with my working class Yorkshire accent.
    To be fair, all the voice assistants are shit. Just some are shitter than others. Kinda of like current political situation.
    Google is reasonably decent at some voice controls to be used handsfree while driving. Eg changing destination on the satnav or changing music. Or setting an alarm or reminder.

    Don't really use a voice assistant for anything else.
    Google have the best tech, but all of them are limited to specific settings and wants commands in particular format. I just find it way easier to click buttons.
    Most voice tech is a pointless gimmick. My Siri use is limited to asking it the time in other countries, one of the very few jobs it is actually quicker to do than using a keyboard.
    What they actually want to do is more interesting / useful, but requires that the public will be comfortable with big tech monitoring you even more of you life via both sound and vision.

    I can’t see that flying somehow.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,927
    Anazina said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oort said:

    Hilariously lukewarm words from Philip Hammond, written with how much conviction? :smile:

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1072962492605890562

    I'll let you into a little secret.

    Most ministers do not write their own tweets.

    They are written and published by an adviser.
    Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
    If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
    I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.

    Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
    Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.

    It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
    Siri, another crap Apple product....
    Am not keen on Siri.

    It struggles with my working class Yorkshire accent.
    To be fair, all the voice assistants are shit. Just some are shitter than others. Kinda of like current political situation.
    Google is reasonably decent at some voice controls to be used handsfree while driving. Eg changing destination on the satnav or changing music. Or setting an alarm or reminder.

    Don't really use a voice assistant for anything else.
    Google have the best tech, but all of them are limited to specific settings and wants commands in particular format. I just find it way easier to click buttons.
    Most voice tech is a pointless gimmick. My Siri use is limited to asking it the time in other countries, one of the very few jobs it is actually quicker to do than using a keyboard.
    Yep. Short, unambiguous facts are where these are at. Don’t ever ask it to cal someone unless you like it dialling a random number from your contacts!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,097
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    MaxPB said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    He's probably representative of the view of a majority in the country tbf.

    Edit: but hang on a minute - what were you doing in a cab? I thought you were an Uber-mensch?
    Yes, I think so. Tory MPs who don't vote for the deal are opening the door to remain or no deal
    May's deal IS Remain?
    No it leaves the EU and ends free movement but I know the only Brexit you will be happy with is a purist No Deal

    No I would be happy with the deal without the backstop.

    We can't find ourselves in a situation where the only way we can truly leave is for the EU to give us permission to leave or to sacrifice NI - That leaves us worse than the position we're currently in as we can (in theory) leave through A50 as members of the EU.
    Yes as the EU have made clear, no backstop, no guarantee of no hard border in Ireland, no Deal
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    How many Tory MPs on the government payroll? If we assume they all voted for May (I know, I know), what was the split for the rest of the MPs?

    I think 102 MP ministers and whips, from a quick scan of https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers
    There may be some duplicates in there though, and I think there’s a few dozen junior bag carriers who don’t get a salary.
    PPSs are deemed to be part of the payroll vote, even though they don't get paid any extra, and would stand to lose that "job" if they defy the whip. IIRC there's one PPS per minister (not sure whether whips have them too).
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    Was this an Uber driver or black cab?
  • Options
    GIN1138 said:

    MaxPB said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    He's probably representative of the view of a majority in the country tbf.

    Edit: but hang on a minute - what were you doing in a cab? I thought you were an Uber-mensch?
    Yes, I think so. Tory MPs who don't vote for the deal are opening the door to remain or no deal
    May's deal IS Remain?
    No it really isn't. It might not be the ideologically pure Leave that you want and it may have bits we don't like. But it is most certainly Leave as I and I suspect 95% of the population would understand it. It is most certainly worth taking if the only alternative is Remain and in many ways is also worth taking on its own merits.
  • Options
    Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oort said:

    Hilariously lukewarm words from Philip Hammond, written with how much conviction? :smile:

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1072962492605890562

    I'll let you into a little secret.

    Most ministers do not write their own tweets.

    They are written and published by an adviser.
    Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
    If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
    I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.

    Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
    Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.

    It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
    Can someone with Siri ask what Covfefe means?
    It means someone hit enter instead of backspace.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610

    What I still don’t understand is how May and her team, and the EU cannot see that the backstop is an affront to natural justice. It is kafkaesque to be signed up to a legal agreement before a negotiation where you cannot leave unless both parties agree, and the only time the legal agreement would come into force is if you are in disagreement!

    What I don't understand is why the backstop isn't being recognised as a tremendous place to be for the UK: full access to the CU, no FoM, no fees!
    It's an awful, awful position to be in. Rule taker for life. Maybe you're ok with that, but most people in the country, leaver and remained alike, aren't. Even in the EU we had 1/28th of a say and 0/1 domestically, the backstop mean 0/27ths of a say in the EU and 0/1 of a say domestically. It really is a terrible idea and if May signs us up I expect the next PM to repeal the withdrawal agreement and abrogate the treaty. It is an untenable position.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,737
    Donny43 said:

    Foxy said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdote Alert:

    taxidriver from SW1 to NW1 as we heard the result (he was listening intently):

    "Good. Just let her carry on, with Brexit, and get over it. Enough."

    She has the average voter on her side, I reckon. (and yes yes, London cabbies are Nazis)

    He is going to be disappointed. This May Deal that he clings to is just the overture. The main section hasn't even started, and the same dynamic will apply over Ireland and Customs Union, whether Deal or No Deal. We have years of this to go.
    Once we have officially left then the continuity remain campaign will transform into a rejoin campaign, which will be a lot smaller...
    Not much different in size, I think. Particularly when all the Brexit unicorns turn out to be donkeys with traffic cones on their heads
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,325
    I popped over to ConHome to check in on their celebrations, but there don't seem to be any.
  • Options
    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    Voice dictation tech, eg by nuance, works ok if you pre-train it.

    The problem with the personal assistants isn’t so much the voice recognition element, it is the understanding of what that means / what you actullly want.
  • Options
    AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    edited December 2018
    OllyT said:

    JohnO said:

    Still looking like No Deal will be the eventual outcome.

    For which May and Hammond have been totally negligent in failing to prepare for.
    If no deal does turn out to be a disaster do you really believe that 24 months extra planning would have turned into into a rip-roaring success? I just can't see it and I think it's just hardliners getting their excuses in early.
    I would have preferred a FTA myself but I think no deal could have worked with proper planning and preparation yes. Being able to deregulate and cut our own trade deals was always the biggest win from Brexit in my view. It would certainly have avoided the chaos we’ll get now for the first few years if it ever happens. After that, I think we’ll be Ok if we haven’t got a total muppet like May or Corbyn in charge.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,927

    Sandpit said:

    BBC at 10pm reporting some sort of fudging on the backstop is being put together by the EU.

    I’ll believe that when I see it. Any changes need to be to the actual withdrawal agreement treaty if its to stand any chance of passing Parliament. Not to the meanless political declaration that sits alongside it.
    I don’t know f you heard it, but it was basically a statement that should no trade deal agreed by end of time they intend to continue to negotiate...basically means nothing given the EU have in the past spent decades talking over deals.
    I didn’t hear it, but as expected. When I hear that the EU are discussing amendments to the WA legal treaty text, in the context of the backstop, then I’ll be all ears.
  • Options
    Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    ERG have the whip hand because the default is no deal.

    Correct.
    It always amazes me that the obvious "no deal is default" fact evades so many
    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,009



    Timetable:

    May delays Deal vote until last possible day: January 21st
    Deal goes down in flames
    Corbyn tables an immediate VoNC, which takes place in January 22nd

    * If the DUP sticks with the Government, he fails
    * If the DUP switches sides, he succeeds

    If he succeeds then we have a pantomime for a fortnight whilst we wait for the clock to run down on the FTPA (Note: this might provide the Tories with breathing room to crown a successor to May unopposed. Otherwise, they are stuck with her)

    The pantomime ends and Parliament can be dissolved on or after February 5th.

    The FPTA states that Parliament must be dissolved 25 working days before the date of the General Election (and now I'm relying on Wikipedia, so hopefully this is accurate,) which would suggest a likely election date of March 14th, i.e. the first Thursday after 25 days has passed (the Easter break isn't til April so doesn't get in the way.)

    That would leave an incoming Parliament and Government a fortnight in which to revoke A50 and guillotine the necessary bills through Parliament to repeal the Brexit legislation. Personally I think that Corbyn would rather we left, but if he does end up winning an election (or at any rate getting close enough to rule with SNP votes) on a Remain manifesto (or even on resetting the A50 clock and then embarking on a unicorn renegotiation strategy that can be given up on at a later date,) i.e. effectively cancelling Brexit, then that would make a great many both of his devoted supporters and his restive backbenchers very, very happy and grateful.

    In short, it's a very tight timetable but it is doable. Unfortunately for committed Remainers, it would also be unbelievably risky for them to have to rely on such a chain of events. They might fancy their chances of winning a snap election, but if the DUP simply decides to sit on its hands and let the clock run down once they are rid of their hated backstop then they get nothing...

    Shit - could Corbyn whip his lot to abstain on the Deal, so it passes on Government votes alone, and then use the DUP to kill the Government afterwards?

    Is that a viable strategy? I mean, perhaps he wouldn't do that because he really does want to get out of the EU, and allow the Government to take the fall for buggering up No Deal, before striking? Or is there something else obvious I'm missing here?

    You forget that it takes a few days to
    i) count all the papers,
    ii)for Parliament to be formally called,
    ii)for the MPs to be sworn in
    iv) and for the queen speech to open Parliament.

    I suspect once we hit January 8th we are out of time..
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,744

    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    Voice dictation tech, eg by nuance, works ok if you pre-train it.

    The problem with the personal assistants isn’t so much the voice recognition element, it is the understanding of what that means / what you actullly want.
    I use dictation for my pose stings on hear all the thyme. It works real ewell.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
  • Options

    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    Voice dictation tech, eg by nuance, works ok if you pre-train it.

    The problem with the personal assistants isn’t so much the voice recognition element, it is the understanding of what that means / what you actullly want.
    I use dictation for my pose stings on hear all the thyme. It works real ewell.
    Lol, very good.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    That was likely Dragon Dictate, which was one of the first widely used speech recognition programmes that wasn't awful.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
    The executive can't repeal an act of parliament.

  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
    Yes we can unilaterally revoke but thanks to Miller the A50 notification was permitted by a piece ifprimary legislation. I would expect it would also require primary legislation to revoke it
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,927
    rpjs said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    How many Tory MPs on the government payroll? If we assume they all voted for May (I know, I know), what was the split for the rest of the MPs?

    I think 102 MP ministers and whips, from a quick scan of https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers
    There may be some duplicates in there though, and I think there’s a few dozen junior bag carriers who don’t get a salary.
    PPSs are deemed to be part of the payroll vote, even though they don't get paid any extra, and would stand to lose that "job" if they defy the whip. IIRC there's one PPS per minister (not sure whether whips have them too).
    That makes sense. One PPS per minister (but not whips) would be around 175 on the payroll, which sounds about right and is more than half the PCP. Not that it matters too much in a secret ballot.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,744
    glw said:

    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    That was likely Dragon Dictate, which was one of the first widely used speech recognition programmes that wasn't awful.
    Siri's pretty good tbh. (Unless you have a posh-boy accent like TSE)
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MaxPB said:

    The executive can't repeal an act of parliament.

    That's a different issue
  • Options
    glw said:

    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    That was likely Dragon Dictate, which was one of the first widely used speech recognition programmes that wasn't awful.
    That was made nuance, who are still the leaders at this and under the hood of lots of the tech it is their IP doing the voice recognition.
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    BBC at 10pm reporting some sort of fudging on the backstop is being put together by the EU.

    That's not a big surprise, I think it may finally have dawned on the EU that they lose a lot from no deal and the backstop will result in no deal by default.
    I so hope that's true then everyone can unite and put this issue to bed. Best for everyone.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,915
    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
    If we try without it, surely there would be a legal challenge to test that?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,927
    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    Dragon Naturally Speaking?

    Like a lot of computing stuff, it appears that things haven’t moved on quite as much as we expected them to a couple of decades ago.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    The executive can't repeal an act of parliament.

    That's a different issue
    No it's not.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    Dragon Naturally Speaking?

    Like a lot of computing stuff, it appears that things haven’t moved on quite as much as we expected them to a couple of decades ago.
    I think it was called ViaVoice. I was using a Power Macintosh G3 at the time. (When most people didn't know that Apple was a computer company).
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549

    glw said:

    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    That was likely Dragon Dictate, which was one of the first widely used speech recognition programmes that wasn't awful.
    That was made nuance, who are still the leaders at this and under the hood of lots of the tech it is their IP doing the voice recognition.
    Yep.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Yes we can unilaterally revoke but thanks to Miller the A50 notification was permitted by a piece ifprimary legislation. I would expect it would also require primary legislation to revoke it

    As I understand it, Miller is not relevant because thy explicitly excluded revocation. In fact there is a view that Miller is no longer settled law because it was based on assumptions that are no longer true.

    So we probably don't need legislation to revoke.

    But, there is legislation that says we are leaving. If we revoke, we might be in breach of that legislation, unless it is repealed, although again it may be based on assumptions that are no longer valid
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    The executive can't repeal an act of parliament.

    That's a different issue
    No it's not.
    See later posts
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
    Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.

    Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,927
    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
    There would need to be a pile of recent legislation repealed though, everything passed since the A50 notice was given.

    Even in the (unlikely) event that a court held the PM could just revoke the A50 notice of their own accord, a pile of primary legislation would still be required to undo Brexit from where we are now.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    If we try without it, surely there would be a legal challenge to test that?

    There has already been a legal case that says we can revoke, and the Miller case is undermined by the ECJ ruling
  • Options
    Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted
  • Options

    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
    Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.

    Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
    The law of unintended consequences can be a real bitch.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,927
    AndyJS said:

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    Dragon Naturally Speaking?

    Like a lot of computing stuff, it appears that things haven’t moved on quite as much as we expected them to a couple of decades ago.
    I think it was called ViaVoice. I was using a Power Macintosh G3 at the time. (When most people didn't know that Apple was a computer company).
    Don’t remember ViaVoice, but do remember the old OS9 Macs were great, at a time when everyone else was on Windows 3.11 or 95.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    edited December 2018
    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    The executive can't repeal an act of parliament.

    That's a different issue
    No it's not.
    See later posts
    Until that theory is tested in court the default position is that legislation has already been passed and would need to be repealed with a vote.

    Gina Miller, best friend of no deal brexit.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sandpit said:

    There would need to be a pile of recent legislation repealed though, everything passed since the A50 notice was given.

    Even in the (unlikely) event that a court held the PM could just revoke the A50 notice of their own accord, a pile of primary legislation would still be required to undo Brexit from where we are now.

    Which is why I said it was a different issue.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.

    Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?

    Still no.

    We can revoke without legislation.

    We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
  • Options
    Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.
    They retained a veto for themselves.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
    There would need to be a pile of recent legislation repealed though, everything passed since the A50 notice was given.

    Even in the (unlikely) event that a court held the PM could just revoke the A50 notice of their own accord, a pile of primary legislation would still be required to undo Brexit from where we are now.
    And in any event, May has said over and over again she intends to honour the result of the referendum. If A50 is to be revoked unilaterally by the PM I think it will need to be a different PM.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    Scott_P said:

    Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.

    Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?

    Still no.

    We can revoke without legislation.

    We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
    It needs to be repealed which will need a vote.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    Donny43 said:

    And that revoking A50 needs primary legislation (as well as ECJ consent).

    Link?

    The ECJ have already said we can unilaterally revoke.

    And the Miller case did not consider revocation, so it doesn't necessarily need legislation.
    There would need to be a pile of recent legislation repealed though, everything passed since the A50 notice was given.

    Even in the (unlikely) event that a court held the PM could just revoke the A50 notice of their own accord, a pile of primary legislation would still be required to undo Brexit from where we are now.
    And in any event, May has said over and over again she intends to honour the result of the referendum. If A50 is to be revoked unilaterally by the PM I think it will need to be a different PM.
    Not much chance of that now.
  • Options
    Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    AndyJS said:

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    I used voice recognition software for about 6 months in 1998 or 1999, I can't remember exactly. Got fed up with it after that. The one I was using was pretty good though, for the time.

    Dragon Naturally Speaking?

    Like a lot of computing stuff, it appears that things haven’t moved on quite as much as we expected them to a couple of decades ago.
    I think it was called ViaVoice. I was using a Power Macintosh G3 at the time. (When most people didn't know that Apple was a computer company).
    I remember that. It must have come free/bundled with something as I wouldn't have paid for it.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MaxPB said:

    It needs to be repealed which will need a vote.

    yes, independent of revoking Article 50
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,915
    Scott_P said:

    Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.

    Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?


    We can revoke without legislation.

    We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
    That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1072987970188255237

    I think the Mail needs renaming to The Daily May
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    edited December 2018
    eek said:

    You forget that it takes a few days to
    i) count all the papers,
    ii)for Parliament to be formally called,
    ii)for the MPs to be sworn in
    iv) and for the queen speech to open Parliament.

    I suspect once we hit January 8th we are out of time..

    Yes, these are all absolutely valid points. A theory suddenly occurred to me and I went with it without thinking through the pratfalls. It happens.

    So, we're back to political realignment or no deal by default, then.

    Edit: this also gets Corbyn off the hook, with respect to having to implement his unicorn renegotiation strategy, if the Government falls at any point after around the point you suggest. Even if the DUP brings down May they'd almost certainly decline to vote to put Corbyn into bat, and the new Parliament wouldn't begin to sit in time to repeal the EU Withdrawal Act.
  • Options
    Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    It needs to be repealed which will need a vote.

    yes, independent of revoking Article 50
    Nope. Revoking of A50 can only be done in accordance with our constitutional requirements. As long as there is extant statute compelling us to leave on 29/3/2019 the ECJ would be bound to use their veto as the conditions wouldn't be met.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.

    Maybe.

    As stated above, it may be that revoking means we break our own law, which isn't the same as saying it can't be done.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,915
    Scott_P said:
    Funny, except as harder advocates of the 17.4 million would complain, she's listened a bit too much to the people who didn't vote for Brexit which is why she's proposing BINO.

    But it is another sign of how May cannot please anyone in this debate, the fanatics won't permit anything that looks like a win for the other side, be it leaving in any form whatsoever, or anything short of a complete break.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Donny43 said:

    Nope. Revoking of A50 can only be done in accordance with our constitutional requirements. As long as there is extant statute compelling us to leave on 29/3/2019 the ECJ would be bound to use their veto as the conditions wouldn't be met.

    The statue only compels us to leave if we haven't revoked Article 50...
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    It needs to be repealed which will need a vote.

    yes, independent of revoking Article 50
    In practice the executive can't do that without being in contempt of Parliament. It is not possible for the executive to unilaterally revoke A50 without first repealing the Miller legislation.

    Everything else is just rubbish.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,915
    Scott_P said:
    Yes, let her get on with the job of having utterly no chance of getting her vote passed.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    If we try without it, surely there would be a legal challenge to test that?

    There has already been a legal case that says we can revoke, and the Miller case is undermined by the ECJ ruling
    No its not. The legal case says the UK can revoke in the same way as the UK could invoke originally. The process to revoke will need to follow the same domestic precedent set in law now by the Supreme Court.
  • Options
    You can alter Brexit Day in UK law via secondary legislation. It was the Letwin amendment to prevent a previous Grieve amendment being voted on. So as long as the treaties are still in force via an A50 extension or revocation then using the secondary route to buy time for the primary route is one option.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MaxPB said:

    In practice the executive can't do that without being in contempt of Parliament. It is not possible for the executive to unilaterally revoke A50 without first repealing the Miller legislation.

    Everything else is just rubbish.

    The Miller case explicitly excluded revocation. And round we go again.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    In practice the executive can't do that without being in contempt of Parliament. It is not possible for the executive to unilaterally revoke A50 without first repealing the Miller legislation.

    Everything else is just rubbish.

    The Miller case explicitly excluded revocation. And round we go again.
    No, we aren't because I'm going to bed. Flying to Dublin tomorrow for our Xmas do. Three days of what I expect to be complete carnage.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    No its not.

    Yes, it is.

    The Miller case explicitly assumed Article 50 could not be revoked. That is not true, therefore the legal basis for the Miller case is in question.
  • Options
    Scott_P said:
    Perhaps they want a 2nd vote?

    Oh wait...
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oort said:

    Hilariously lukewarm words from Philip Hammond, written with how much conviction? :smile:

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1072962492605890562

    I'll let you into a little secret.

    Most ministers do not write their own tweets.

    They are written and published by an adviser.
    Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
    If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
    I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.

    Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
    Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.

    It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
    Siri, another crap Apple product....
    Am not keen on Siri.

    It struggles with my working class Yorkshire accent.
    To be fair, all the voice assistants are shit. Just some are shitter than others. Kinda of like current political situation.
    Google is reasonably decent at some voice controls to be used handsfree while driving. Eg changing destination on the satnav or changing music. Or setting an alarm or reminder.

    Don't really use a voice assistant for anything else.
    Google have the best tech, but all of them are limited to specific settings and wants commands in particular format. I just find it way easier to click buttons.
    Clicking buttons while driving isn't really recommended.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MaxPB said:

    No, we aren't because I'm going to bed. Flying to Dublin tomorrow for our Xmas do. Three days of what I expect to be complete carnage.

    Good call
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited December 2018

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oort said:

    Hilariously lukewarm words from Philip Hammond, written with how much conviction? :smile:

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1072962492605890562

    I'll let you into a little secret.

    Most ministers do not write their own tweets.

    They are written and published by an adviser.
    Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
    If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
    I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.

    Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
    Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.

    It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
    Siri, another crap Apple product....
    Am not keen on Siri.

    It struggles with my working class Yorkshire accent.
    To be fair, all the voice assistants are shit. Just some are shitter than others. Kinda of like current political situation.
    Google is reasonably decent at some voice controls to be used handsfree while driving. Eg changing destination on the satnav or changing music. Or setting an alarm or reminder.

    Don't really use a voice assistant for anything else.
    Google have the best tech, but all of them are limited to specific settings and wants commands in particular format. I just find it way easier to click buttons.
    Clicking buttons while driving isn't really recommended.
    Well I use Waze for directions / traffic, which automatically handles re-routing etc. And I can click buttons on steering wheel and console for handling calls / music.
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    No its not.

    Yes, it is.

    The Miller case explicitly assumed Article 50 could not be revoked. That is not true, therefore the legal basis for the Miller case is in question.
    It was assumed but it wasn't part of the logic as to why Miller won. Therefore those principles still apply. What has been determined by laws in Parliament can't be set aside without a law authorising it. Therefore to revoke requires legislation.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,969
    edited December 2018
    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    In practice the executive can't do that without being in contempt of Parliament. It is not possible for the executive to unilaterally revoke A50 without first repealing the Miller legislation.

    Everything else is just rubbish.

    The Miller case explicitly excluded revocation. And round we go again.
    It doesn't matter that it excluded it. What it did was force the Executive to pass primary legislation to invoke A50. If you wish to revoke you would have to repeal that primary legislation.

    As someone who supported the Miller case I do find it amusing that Remainers who were screaming about the will of Parliament before A50 was invoked are now arguing that Parliament should be ignored in revoking that same A50. Bunch of hypocrites.
This discussion has been closed.