The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The GOP with blocking the filling of the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama for nearly a year have set a dangerous precedent. If Pence goes first then the Democrats could under the same principles block a replacement and just keep the vacancy open, like the GOP did with Merrick Garland. Then it would take Trump going and Pelosi is POTUS under the rules.
It's more than 200/1 in my eyes though since the Senate won't impeach anyone and make Pelosi POTUS even if Trump is uberguilty.
Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
You think the EU will allow free movement for Brits even after we end free movement for them?
Don’t they already have to show they wouldn’t be a burden on the state if they retire there? Fail to see how it’ll be any different.
No they don't. Unless someone becomes a burden on the state then they can live in Spain indefinitely.
Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
You think the EU will allow free movement for Brits even after we end free movement for them?
Given that we pay the Spanish for their care, I should imagine so.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The premise is that it would not just be Trump who was compromised but the whole Trump "regime", for want of a better word. It's perfectly conceivable that Pence wouldn't be a viable President.
Sure - but Pence should be replaced by a Republican (I think the original conversation was Congress foisting a Democrat VP on a Republican President)
If he's replaced. The Merrick Garland precedent means that it is possible no replacement is ever authorised.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
They have the capacity to update the laws and have done so on numerous occasions. The Vice President used to be the runner up in the presidential election for example. And slavery used to be legal.
They are clearly happy with the idea of the party who controls the houses replacing the elected party with one of their own should the situation arise.
Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
You think the EU will allow free movement for Brits even after we end free movement for them?
Don’t they already have to show they wouldn’t be a burden on the state if they retire there? Fail to see how it’ll be any different.
Don't think so.
And in any event the EU has said that Brits will be able to take up employment in a member state, but, as I understand it only one. A Brit who gets a job in France will not, as they can now, decide to move on to Spain.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The premise is that it would not just be Trump who was compromised but the whole Trump "regime", for want of a better word. It's perfectly conceivable that Pence wouldn't be a viable President.
If Trump resigns, Pence automatically becomes President under the 25th Amendment if he is still in office. There is no choice in the matter.
And remember exactly the same rules apply to removing the Veep as apply to removing the POTUS. It's very far from easy.
But Pence then has to get his new VP pick confirmed by both houses.
I’m looking forward to seeing the Corbynites lecturing the Simon Wiesenthal Centre about antisemitism
Jeremy Corbyn has been named in an annual list of the top ten antisemitic incidents around the world.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a human rights organisation which researches the Holocaust, placed Mr Corbyn fourth in the list.
The Labour leader was dogged by accusations of antisemitism for much of the summer after The Times’s revelation that he had hosted an event comparing Israel to the Nazis. This was followed by claims that he had been present as a wreath was laid for Palestinians involved in the Black September terrorist group.
The centre, which is based in Los Angeles, wrote: “Allegations of antisemitism on the part of key members and officials of the UK’s Labour Party officials have piled up in recent years, injecting the world’s oldest hatred into the mainstream of society. Party leader Jeremy Corbyn stands directly responsible.
“In July Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers published a joint article warning of ‘the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Corbyn government’. A poll conducted at the end of the summer concluded that 40 per cent of the Jewish community would consider leaving the UK if Labour took the election.”
Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
You think the EU will allow free movement for Brits even after we end free movement for them?
Don’t they already have to show they wouldn’t be a burden on the state if they retire there? Fail to see how it’ll be any different.
Don't think so.
And in any event the EU has said that Brits will be able to take up employment in a member state, but, as I understand it only one. A Brit who gets a job in France will not, as they can now, decide to move on to Spain.
Unless they get a new job, in which case they will. While there will be some more paperwork with getting visas, it won’t make much difference for high skilled workers.
Unless they get a new job, in which case they will. While there will be some more paperwork with getting visas, it won’t make much difference for high skilled workers.
Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
You think the EU will allow free movement for Brits even after we end free movement for them?
Don’t they already have to show they wouldn’t be a burden on the state if they retire there? Fail to see how it’ll be any different.
No they don't. Unless someone becomes a burden on the state then they can live in Spain indefinitely.
They don’t until they do? As with the skilled labour, it’ll involve some additional paperwork to get a visa. While some may opt not to do that, the opportunity will still exist.
Unless they get a new job, in which case they will. While there will be some more paperwork with getting visas, it won’t make much difference for high skilled workers.
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
I’m looking forward to seeing the Corbynites lecturing the Simon Wiesenthal Centre about antisemitism
Jeremy Corbyn has been named in an annual list of the top ten antisemitic incidents around the world.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a human rights organisation which researches the Holocaust, placed Mr Corbyn fourth in the list.
The Labour leader was dogged by accusations of antisemitism for much of the summer after The Times’s revelation that he had hosted an event comparing Israel to the Nazis. This was followed by claims that he had been present as a wreath was laid for Palestinians involved in the Black September terrorist group.
The centre, which is based in Los Angeles, wrote: “Allegations of antisemitism on the part of key members and officials of the UK’s Labour Party officials have piled up in recent years, injecting the world’s oldest hatred into the mainstream of society. Party leader Jeremy Corbyn stands directly responsible.
“In July Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers published a joint article warning of ‘the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Corbyn government’. A poll conducted at the end of the summer concluded that 40 per cent of the Jewish community would consider leaving the UK if Labour took the election.”
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
Are they? I thought ending free movement was still overwhelmingly popular?
'Ending free movement' is up high somewhere in the Augustinian ambition isn't it; make me good but not yet. We don't want any of those nasty foreigners coming here and taking our jobs and houses, UNLESS they have a skill which we, for some reason, are not prepared to acquire; examples include surgeons, GP's, nurses, care workers, plumbers, curry chefs.
Also ending FOM only applies to foreigners. Brits who so wish must be free to retire to Malta, Spain or Cyprus.
And no doubt they’ll be free to do that after FOM ends.
You think the EU will allow free movement for Brits even after we end free movement for them?
Don’t they already have to show they wouldn’t be a burden on the state if they retire there? Fail to see how it’ll be any different.
Don't think so.
And in any event the EU has said that Brits will be able to take up employment in a member state, but, as I understand it only one. A Brit who gets a job in France will not, as they can now, decide to move on to Spain.
Unless they get a new job, in which case they will. While there will be some more paperwork with getting visas, it won’t make much difference for high skilled workers.
Very little stops highly skilled workers who actually have a job offer. It's everyone else who will lose out.
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
Assuming that's the real plan, if it passes then another referendum would become almost a nailed on certainty. Remainers would have no cause to back May's deal as the least worst option (in their view).
However, it does then pose another problem. Does a referendum occur via an extension of the Article 50 period, or revocation of Article 50?
Assuming that's the real plan, if it passes then another referendum would become almost a nailed on certainty. Remainers would have no cause to back May's deal as the least worst option (in their view).
However, it does then pose another problem. Does a referendum occur via an extension of the Article 50 period, or revocation of Article 50?
Revocation.
An extension requires unanimity which gives every EU27 country a veto.
Thanks to the brilliant CJEU we can unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Interesting precedent, which invites a way to insult Elon Musk on Twitter.
Elon Musk has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against him by British cave diver Vern Unsworth, arguing his "over-the-top insults" should not be taken as statements of fact.
Lawyers for Mr Musk claimed that Twitter, where he first insulted Mr Unsworth, was a "rough-and-tumble" platform, and that the site was "a social networking website infamous for invective and hyperbole".
"The reasonable reader would not have believed that Musk – without ever having met Unsworth, in the midst of a schoolyard spat on social media, and from 8,000 miles afar – was conveying that he was in possession of private knowledge that Unsworth was sexually attracted to children or engaged with sex acts with children," said court papers first reported by BuzzFeed.
I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
I’m not picking and choosing
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
The individual is the Republican/Democratic candidate. People are voting for the individual as a party candidate.
In a separate election, for a different organisation, with a different constitutional role, the voters select other politicians
Do you not conceive that they might want a President from one party and a legislature controlled by the other?
To allow the legislature to replace the President with someone from a different party strikesme as flying in the face of the express intention of the voters
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
The only circumstances where this can happen (I think) are:
1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.
2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.
I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.
I tell a lie, a VP nominee has to be confirmed by both houses in the event of a vacancy. I suppose this could, in theory, make 2 more plausible if the Democrats in the House block the replacement so that the position remains vacant. That would however require balls of steel.
The most recent national elections in the US were in November when the Dems swept to power in the House and they are never going to agree to an appointed Republican as a VP replacement. If Trump goes Pelosi is one step closer.
It is very unlikely to happen , but the backdrop is very different to the 1973 scenario when Agnew was forced to quit. Trump did not win a landslide - indeed he comfortably lost the popular vote. More recently the Democrats scored a big win in the Congessional elections for the House of Representatives.
It's not. He won according to the rules. If the presidency was taken away by what is effectively the use of arcane procedures in the House, there would be hell to pay.
When will those who oppose Trump / Brexit get it that trying to get your desired outcome by use of legalese and procedures is likely to backfire spectacularly?
If push comes to (a very extreme) shove, bear in mind a high proportion of the UK / US armed forces come from what would be deemed to be Brexit-y / Trump regions. If I was a right-on Trump / Brexit-hater, I would not rely on those troops to follow your orders if the sh1t hit the fan.
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The GOP with blocking the filling of the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama for nearly a year have set a dangerous precedent. If Pence goes first then the Democrats could under the same principles block a replacement and just keep the vacancy open, like the GOP did with Merrick Garland. Then it would take Trump going and Pelosi is POTUS under the rules.
It's more than 200/1 in my eyes though since the Senate won't impeach anyone and make Pelosi POTUS even if Trump is uberguilty.
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The GOP with blocking the filling of the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama for nearly a year have set a dangerous precedent. If Pence goes first then the Democrats could under the same principles block a replacement and just keep the vacancy open, like the GOP did with Merrick Garland. Then it would take Trump going and Pelosi is POTUS under the rules.
It's more than 200/1 in my eyes though since the Senate won't impeach anyone and make Pelosi POTUS even if Trump is uberguilty.
I agree. They shouldn’t have done it.
Arguably, the Democrats set the precedent by their treatment of Robert Bork and, later on, Miguel Estrada.
I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
I’m not picking and choosing
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
The individual is the Republican/Democratic candidate. People are voting for the individual as a party candidate.
In a separate election, for a different organisation, with a different constitutional role, the voters select other politicians
Do you not conceive that they might want a President from one party and a legislature controlled by the other?
To allow the legislature to replace the President with someone from a different party strikesme as flying in the face of the express intention of the voters
The logically consistent extension of your view is that any impeachment ought to trigger a new presidential election.
I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
I’m not picking and choosing
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
The individual is the Republican/Democratic candidate. People are voting for the individual as a party candidate.
In a separate election, for a different organisation, with a different constitutional role, the voters select other politicians
Do you not conceive that they might want a President from one party and a legislature controlled by the other?
To allow the legislature to replace the President with someone from a different party strikesme as flying in the face of the express intention of the voters
I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
I’m not picking and choosing
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
More voters voted for a different candidate.
So what? The rules are the rules. If it was based on a popular vote outcome, Trump would have campaigned in a different way.
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The GOP with blocking the filling of the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama for nearly a year have set a dangerous precedent. If Pence goes first then the Democrats could under the same principles block a replacement and just keep the vacancy open, like the GOP did with Merrick Garland. Then it would take Trump going and Pelosi is POTUS under the rules.
It's more than 200/1 in my eyes though since the Senate won't impeach anyone and make Pelosi POTUS even if Trump is uberguilty.
I agree. They shouldn’t have done it.
Arguably, the Democrats set the precedent by their treatment of Robert Bork and, later on, Miguel Estrada.
The slogan of the Bork nomination, 'No justice would be better than this injustice'
Bork was an appalling candidate, even if you ignored his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
More voters voted for a different candidate.
So what? The rules are the rules. If it was based on a popular vote outcome, Trump would have campaigned in a different way.
If you’re going to claim a travesty of the will of the people, it sure helps if you won most votes.
The rules for replacing the president are self-contained. The Republicans have shown not the slightest interest in working to the spirit of the rules rather than to their letter. Why should the Democrats do differently?
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The GOP with blocking the filling of the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama for nearly a year have set a dangerous precedent. If Pence goes first then the Democrats could under the same principles block a replacement and just keep the vacancy open, like the GOP did with Merrick Garland. Then it would take Trump going and Pelosi is POTUS under the rules.
It's more than 200/1 in my eyes though since the Senate won't impeach anyone and make Pelosi POTUS even if Trump is uberguilty.
I agree. They shouldn’t have done it.
Indeed. But they did - and I can foresee the Democrats gladly repaying it if they see the opportunity.
Utterly irrelevant. The candidates know the rules of the game beforehand, it is States that matter. The fact that Hillary famously lost blue States she didn't bother campaigning in is her own damned fault - and the fault of a party that let her be so arrogant.
Hopefully the Democrats have learnt their lesson and won't take their own voters and States for granted again.
Utterly irrelevant. The candidates know the rules of the game beforehand, it is States that matter. The fact that Hillary famously lost blue States she didn't bother campaigning in is her own damned fault - and the fault of a party that let her be so arrogant.
Hopefully the Democrats have learnt their lesson and won't take their own voters and States for granted again.
And yet again. As @TheKitchenCabinet rightly said, the rules are the rules. That applies as much to the replacement of presidents as to their election. Those involved in the replacement can take into account such considerations as they consider fit. The screaming abdabs from those of a different party would be unlikely to figure highly on the list.
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
I’m not picking and choosing
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
The individual is the Republican/Democratic candidate. People are voting for the individual as a party candidate.
In a separate election, for a different organisation, with a different constitutional role, the voters select other politicians
Do you not conceive that they might want a President from one party and a legislature controlled by the other?
To allow the legislature to replace the President with someone from a different party strikesme as flying in the face of the express intention of the voters
More voters voted for a different candidate.
That’s irrelevant. The rules are the electoral college decides
I'm not sure how the Republicans, who currently have a president elected by a minority according to the rules of the game and who have control of the Senate elected by a minority according to the rules of the game, could complain about a Democrat president being installed according to the rules of the game.
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
I’m not picking and choosing
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
The individual is the Republican/Democratic candidate. People are voting for the individual as a party candidate.
In a separate election, for a different organisation, with a different constitutional role, the voters select other politicians
Do you not conceive that they might want a President from one party and a legislature controlled by the other?
To allow the legislature to replace the President with someone from a different party strikesme as flying in the face of the express intention of the voters
The logically consistent extension of your view is that any impeachment ought to trigger a new presidential election.
There’s an arguable case for that although I don’t think it’s the logically consistent extension of my view
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
That really does remind me of the Unionists threatening to veto the Mutiny Act over Home Rule in 1913, and not in a good way.
If I've understood it, isn't it just a way for the House to neutralise the threat of a no deal Brexit from the government. As such it would just be the nation's representatives defending the nation's interests.
Utterly irrelevant. The candidates know the rules of the game beforehand, it is States that matter. The fact that Hillary famously lost blue States she didn't bother campaigning in is her own damned fault - and the fault of a party that let her be so arrogant.
Hopefully the Democrats have learnt their lesson and won't take their own voters and States for granted again.
And yet again. As @TheKitchenCabinet rightly said, the rules are the rules. That applies as much to the replacement of presidents as to their election. Those involved in the replacement can take into account such considerations as they consider fit. The screaming abdabs from those of a different party would be unlikely to figure highly on the list.
I am arguing that they *shouldn’t* not that they *can’t*
More fool me for expecting a lawyer to know the difference between law and justice I suppose
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
I’m not picking and choosing
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
The individual is the Republican/Democratic candidate. People are voting for the individual as a party candidate.
In a separate election, for a different organisation, with a different constitutional role, the voters select other politicians
Do you not conceive that they might want a President from one party and a legislature controlled by the other?
To allow the legislature to replace the President with someone from a different party strikesme as flying in the face of the express intention of the voters
More voters voted for a different candidate.
That’s irrelevant. The rules are the electoral college decides
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The GOP with blocking the filling of the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama for nearly a year have set a dangerous precedent. If Pence goes first then the Democrats could under the same principles block a replacement and just keep the vacancy open, like the GOP did with Merrick Garland. Then it would take Trump going and Pelosi is POTUS under the rules.
It's more than 200/1 in my eyes though since the Senate won't impeach anyone and make Pelosi POTUS even if Trump is uberguilty.
I agree. They shouldn’t have done it.
Arguably, the Democrats set the precedent by their treatment of Robert Bork and, later on, Miguel Estrada.
Lolz, the idea that someone involved in the Saturday night massacre 'deserved' a supreme court seat is crazy.
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
I’m not picking and choosing
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
You either subscribe to the system or you don't. I don't see any great magic about automatically replacing a president elected by a minority of the vote with someone from that same minority.
There is no majority or minority of the vote for President. It’s not a relevant statistic in the context of the choice. Voters choose members of the electoral college. Depending on state law and convention those electoral college members cast their vote for president one way or another
There's no majority or minority in the replacement of presidents either. The electoral college isn't a relevant statistic for that.
My point is that the last time the people were consulted they chose the candidate of a given party. That choice should be respected.
Everything else is detail
1) The people vote for an individual not a party. 2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.
The individual is the Republican/Democratic candidate. People are voting for the individual as a party candidate.
In a separate election, for a different organisation, with a different constitutional role, the voters select other politicians
Do you not conceive that they might want a President from one party and a legislature controlled by the other?
To allow the legislature to replace the President with someone from a different party strikesme as flying in the face of the express intention of the voters
More voters voted for a different candidate.
That’s irrelevant. The rules are the electoral college decides
And the rules are that when a VP needs replaced the houses decide.
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
And when a VP resigns the two houses select the replacement. I don't see the problem.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
The GOP with blocking the filling of the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama for nearly a year have set a dangerous precedent. If Pence goes first then the Democrats could under the same principles block a replacement and just keep the vacancy open, like the GOP did with Merrick Garland. Then it would take Trump going and Pelosi is POTUS under the rules.
It's more than 200/1 in my eyes though since the Senate won't impeach anyone and make Pelosi POTUS even if Trump is uberguilty.
I agree. They shouldn’t have done it.
Arguably, the Democrats set the precedent by their treatment of Robert Bork and, later on, Miguel Estrada.
The slogan of the Bork nomination, 'No justice would be better than this injustice'
Bork was an appalling candidate, even if you ignored his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.
He was a supporter of States levying a Poll Tax.
Which, amazingly, wasn't even his most black-and-white constitution breaking view.
Utterly irrelevant. The candidates know the rules of the game beforehand, it is States that matter. The fact that Hillary famously lost blue States she didn't bother campaigning in is her own damned fault - and the fault of a party that let her be so arrogant.
Hopefully the Democrats have learnt their lesson and won't take their own voters and States for granted again.
And yet again. As @TheKitchenCabinet rightly said, the rules are the rules. That applies as much to the replacement of presidents as to their election. Those involved in the replacement can take into account such considerations as they consider fit. The screaming abdabs from those of a different party would be unlikely to figure highly on the list.
I am arguing that they *shouldn’t* not that they *can’t*
More fool me for expecting a lawyer to know the difference between law and justice I suppose
You haven’t begun to articulate why an individual candidate elected with a minority of the votes should inevitably be replaced with an individual from the same party. The rules of the game don’t restrict the selectors in that way and the Republicans have no track record of Corinthian behaviour to justify such an approach. Indeed, they have only just railroaded through a deeply flawed candidate onto the Supreme Court using brute majoritarianism.
Interestingly 26% of British Jews voted for Corbyn yet 40% would consider leaving the country if he got in. Doesn't speak well for Jewish solidarity!
In the shock of the general election result, many people have forgotten that the Labour message on the doorstep in many constituencies in 2017 was "Don't worry, we've got no chance of winning the election, but please vote for me to carry on being your local MP".
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
That really does remind me of the Unionists threatening to veto the Mutiny Act over Home Rule in 1913, and not in a good way.
If I've understood it, isn't it just a way for the House to neutralise the threat of a no deal Brexit from the government. As such it would just be the nation's representatives defending the nation's interests.
Just as vetoing the Mutiny Act was a way to prevent civil war in Ireland.
The fact it would have caused untold additional damage was a detail.
Or to put it another way - which is worse, some short-term disruption to medical supplies, or a total shutdown of the NHS?
If my fellow Remainers cannot see how crazy this would be, then it's no wonder we're getting into such a mess.
Interesting precedent, which invites a way to insult Elon Musk on Twitter.
Elon Musk has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against him by British cave diver Vern Unsworth, arguing his "over-the-top insults" should not be taken as statements of fact.
Lawyers for Mr Musk claimed that Twitter, where he first insulted Mr Unsworth, was a "rough-and-tumble" platform, and that the site was "a social networking website infamous for invective and hyperbole".
"The reasonable reader would not have believed that Musk – without ever having met Unsworth, in the midst of a schoolyard spat on social media, and from 8,000 miles afar – was conveying that he was in possession of private knowledge that Unsworth was sexually attracted to children or engaged with sex acts with children," said court papers first reported by BuzzFeed.
Firstly Musk apologised, then later repeated the accusation to media reports (off the record), and unforced by any interaction with Mr Unsworth.
Secondly, there were plenty of people on the 'net stating that the accusations were probably true, mainly because Musk is a hero who 'knew' something about Unsworth.
Thirdly, this story will always be linked to Unsworth. Musk's apology-then-reiteration made things worse.
Fourthly, I'm unsure he's thought this argument through: I'm sure it's easy to think of an accusation that might be made about a white South African such as Musk on a 'rough-and-tumble' platform ...
Musk should just accept he did something stupid and try to get any monies paid to charities. I might suggest the various cave and mine rescue organisations around the world might be good ones.
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
Interesting precedent, which invites a way to insult Elon Musk on Twitter.
Elon Musk has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against him by British cave diver Vern Unsworth, arguing his "over-the-top insults" should not be taken as statements of fact.
Lawyers for Mr Musk claimed that Twitter, where he first insulted Mr Unsworth, was a "rough-and-tumble" platform, and that the site was "a social networking website infamous for invective and hyperbole".
"The reasonable reader would not have believed that Musk – without ever having met Unsworth, in the midst of a schoolyard spat on social media, and from 8,000 miles afar – was conveying that he was in possession of private knowledge that Unsworth was sexually attracted to children or engaged with sex acts with children," said court papers first reported by BuzzFeed.
Firstly Musk apologised, then later repeated the accusation to media reports (off the record), and unforced by any interaction with Mr Unsworth.
Secondly, there were plenty of people on the 'net stating that the accusations were probably true, mainly because Musk is a hero who 'knew' something about Unsworth.
Thirdly, this story will always be linked to Unsworth. Musk's apology-then-reiteration made things worse.
Fourthly, I'm unsure he's thought this argument through: I'm sure it's easy to think of an accusation that might be made about a white South African such as Musk on a 'rough-and-tumble' platform ...
Musk should just accept he did something stupid and try to get any monies paid to charities. I might suggest the various cave and mine rescue organisations around the world might be good ones.
As FE Smith put it in a famously short opinion.
"This is plainly libellous. Damages will be enormous."
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
That really does remind me of the Unionists threatening to veto the Mutiny Act over Home Rule in 1913, and not in a good way.
If I've understood it, isn't it just a way for the House to neutralise the threat of a no deal Brexit from the government. As such it would just be the nation's representatives defending the nation's interests.
if you don't want No Deal, just bloody vote for the deal!
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
That really does remind me of the Unionists threatening to veto the Mutiny Act over Home Rule in 1913, and not in a good way.
If I've understood it, isn't it just a way for the House to neutralise the threat of a no deal Brexit from the government. As such it would just be the nation's representatives defending the nation's interests.
Just as vetoing the Mutiny Act was a way to prevent civil war in Ireland.
The fact it would have caused untold additional damage was a detail.
Or to put it another way - which is worse, some short-term disruption to medical supplies, or a total shutdown of the NHS?
If my fellow Remainers cannot see how crazy this would be, then it's no wonder we're getting into such a mess.
Undermining the Government so that you can then attempt to undermine the people seems like a pretty poor plan. You might get away with one of these things, but not both.
Utterly irrelevant. The candidates know the rules of the game beforehand, it is States that matter. The fact that Hillary famously lost blue States she didn't bother campaigning in is her own damned fault - and the fault of a party that let her be so arrogant.
Hopefully the Democrats have learnt their lesson and won't take their own voters and States for granted again.
And yet again. As @TheKitchenCabinet rightly said, the rules are the rules. That applies as much to the replacement of presidents as to their election. Those involved in the replacement can take into account such considerations as they consider fit. The screaming abdabs from those of a different party would be unlikely to figure highly on the list.
I am arguing that they *shouldn’t* not that they *can’t*
More fool me for expecting a lawyer to know the difference between law and justice I suppose
You haven’t begun to articulate why an individual candidate elected with a minority of the votes should inevitably be replaced with an individual from the same party. The rules of the game don’t restrict the selectors in that way and the Republicans have no track record of Corinthian behaviour to justify such an approach. Indeed, they have only just railroaded through a deeply flawed candidate onto the Supreme Court using brute majoritarianism.
The minority of the votes is - as has been stated by various people - irrelevant
The case is simple:
1. the major parties nominate candidates for the Presidency (I’m ignoring the theoretical possibility of an independent winning for simplicity)
2. Voters indicate a preference for the presidential candidates of one or other of the parties
3. On the basis of the votes cast an electoral college is formed
4. The Electors then cast their votes as set out in state legislation (I believe in most cases they are tied - at least on the first ballot)
5. This results in the choice of a President and his running mate is appointed VP
My view is that the appropriate thing to do if there is a requirement to replace one of other of these roles for the house to act as an agent on behalf of the electoral college. The voters have said “we want the candidate of party X”, the EC has done its part and the House should feel morally obligated not to over ride the wishes of the electorate.
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
That really does remind me of the Unionists threatening to veto the Mutiny Act over Home Rule in 1913, and not in a good way.
Own goal here; this coming to pass would cement a harder Brexit. If the UK can't collect VAT, it is unable to co-ordinate VAT administration with RoI under the EU's sixth VAT directive, meaning Varadkar and Coveney have to build a god damned wall and collect it themselves at the border.
Apart from that, Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all.
By the numbers.... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/27/eighteen-numbers-that-explain-trumps-2018-223558 1. Number of campaign rallies Trump held in 2018: 44 [1] 2. Number of times he visited one of his golf clubs: 67 [6] 3. Number of war zones visited: 1 4. Number of 2018 general election candidates Trump endorsed: 90 [2] 5. Percentage of those candidates who won: 55 6. Percentage increase from 2017 to 2018 of tweets from @realDonaldTrump: 32 [3] 7. Percentage increase from 2017 to 2018 in references to “witch hunt”: 620 [3] 8. Percentage decrease from 2017 to 2018 in references to the stock market: 54 [3] 9. Number of Cabinet secretaries who were removed or quit: 10 [4] 10. Percentage of Trump’s executive staff that has turned over in first two years: 65 [5] 11. Number of presidents who’ve had more than one chief of staff in their first two years: 4 [5] 12. Number of presidents other than Trump who have had three: 0 [5] 13. Number of jobs gained in 2018 (through November): 2.28 million [7] 14. Number of those jobs (approx.) that were in coal mines: 1,100 [7] 15. Percentage increase in average hourly earnings in 2018 (as of November): 3.1 [7] 16. Percentage increase in U.S. trade deficit since Trump took office: 18 [8] 17. Number of books about Trump that were best-sellers in 2018: 25 [9] 18. Number of them that were favorable to Trump: 10
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
That really does remind me of the Unionists threatening to veto the Mutiny Act over Home Rule in 1913, and not in a good way.
Own goal here; this coming to pass would cement a harder Brexit. If the UK can't collect VAT, it is unable to co-ordinate VAT administration with RoI under the EU's sixth VAT directive, meaning Varadkar and Coveney have to build a god damned wall and collect it themselves at the border.
Apart from that, Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all.
Which as @TOPPING will tell you would cause the UK immediately to capitulate to any conditions necessary to avoid it.
Much depends on whether anti-EU or pro-EU Conservatives end up in charge.
Up to quite recently I was convinced we would Leave next March, deal or no deal but that CJEU has been a game changer.
Dominic Grieve will die on a hill for the EU. How many other Conservatives think likewise?
Jo Johnson, Sarah Wollaston, Anna Soubry to name three further patriots who put the UK before party.
I know you're just trolling but it is sad that there are as many as 4 deluded EU lovers in our party who can't wait to sell our nation out to Brussels at every possible opportunity. Truly their treachery is complete.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
They have the capacity to update the laws and have done so on numerous occasions. The Vice President used to be the runner up in the presidential election for example. And slavery used to be legal.
They are clearly happy with the idea of the party who controls the houses replacing the elected party with one of their own should the situation arise.
Indeed, this is exactly how recess appointments work in the senate. If (say) a Democrat senator dies or resigns in the middle of their term, the Governor of their state gets to appoints a replacement. If the Governor is a Republican, a Republican is appointed. So the previous choice of the voters is irrelevant.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
Utterly irrelevant. The candidates know the rules of the game beforehand, it is States that matter. The fact that Hillary famously lost blue States she didn't bother campaigning in is her own damned fault - and the fault of a party that let her be so arrogant.
Hopefully the Democrats have learnt their lesson and won't take their own voters and States for granted again.
And yet again. As @TheKitchenCabinet rightly said, the rules are the rules. That applies as much to the replacement of presidents as to their election. Those involved in the replacement can take into account such considerations as they consider fit. The screaming abdabs from those of a different party would be unlikely to figure highly on the list.
I am arguing that they *shouldn’t* not that they *can’t*
More fool me for expecting a lawyer to know the difference between law and justice I suppose
You haven’t begun to articulate why an individual candidate elected with a minority of the votes should inevitably be replaced with an individual from the same party. The rules of the game don’t restrict the selectors in that way and the Republicans have no track record of Corinthian behaviour to justify such an approach. Indeed, they have only just railroaded through a deeply flawed candidate onto the Supreme Court using brute majoritarianism.
The minority of the votes is - as has been stated by various people - irrelevant
The case is simple:
1. the major parties nominate candidates for the Presidency (I’m ignoring the theoretical possibility of an independent winning for simplicity)
2. Voters indicate a preference for the presidential candidates of one or other of the parties
3. On the basis of the votes cast an electoral college is formed
4. The Electors then cast their votes as set out in state legislation (I believe in most cases they are tied - at least on the first ballot)
5. This results in the choice of a President and his running mate is appointed VP
My view is that the appropriate thing to do if there is a requirement to replace one of other of these roles for the house to act as an agent on behalf of the electoral college. The voters have said “we want the candidate of party X”, the EC has done its part and the House should feel morally obligated not to over ride the wishes of the electorate.
But as I have pointed out above, this isn’t how recess appointments for the Senate work at all.
My problem was with the idea that the “Democrats refuse to support a Republican”. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the candidate. Essentially just trying to replace the elected party with one of their own.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
They have the capacity to update the laws and have done so on numerous occasions. The Vice President used to be the runner up in the presidential election for example. And slavery used to be legal.
They are clearly happy with the idea of the party who controls the houses replacing the elected party with one of their own should the situation arise.
Indeed, this is exactly how recess appointments work in the senate. If (say) a Democrat senator dies or resigns in the middle of their term, the Governor of their state gets to appoints a replacement. If the Governor is a Republican, a Republican is appointed. So the previous choice of the voters is irrelevant.
(a) there is a huge difference between the leader of the free world and the junior senator for Podunk
(b) I thought it wasn’t the remainder of the term but until the next scheduled election (ie 2 years)
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
Of course, it’s just two years since the Conservative policy was to stay in the EU. Turning the Tory party into UKIP redux is a disastrous idea.
Much depends on whether anti-EU or pro-EU Conservatives end up in charge.
Up to quite recently I was convinced we would Leave next March, deal or no deal but that CJEU has been a game changer.
Dominic Grieve will die on a hill for the EU. How many other Conservatives think likewise?
Jo Johnson, Sarah Wollaston, Anna Soubry to name three further patriots who put the UK before party.
I know you're just trolling but it is sad that there are as many as 4 deluded EU lovers in our party who can't wait to sell our nation out to Brussels at every possible opportunity. Truly their treachery is complete.
It's likely to be a Conservative government that takes England into the Euro.
As a person who enjoys the odd prediction, it's always nice when they come off but you have to be honest and admit it when you call it wrong.
POLITOLOGUE in the King George - didn't jump well enough, made a couple of bad mistakes and was struggling from four out.
I also said I thought the FTSE100 would rebound sharply from the pre-Christmas slide and put on 600 points in the three trading sessions before the end of the year. That's now 700 points in two sessions after another sharp fall today. Almost all the gains recorded since Trump since the 2016 US election have been reversed.
Oil prices (WTI and Brent Crude) have given up half of yesterday's big gains.
I may not be as keen as Antifrank to do 2019 predictions.
Utterly irrelevant. The candidates know the rules of the game beforehand, it is States that matter. The fact that Hillary famously lost blue States she didn't bother campaigning in is her own damned fault - and the fault of a party that let her be so arrogant.
Hopefully the Democrats have learnt their lesson and won't take their own voters and States for granted again.
And yet again. As @TheKitchenCabinet rightly said, the rules are the rules. That applies as much to the replacement of presidents as to their election. Those involved in the replacement can take into account such considerations as they consider fit. The screaming abdabs from those of a different party would be unlikely to figure highly on the list.
I am arguing that they *shouldn’t* not that they *can’t*
More fool me for expecting a lawyer to know the difference between law and justice I suppose
You haven’t begun to articulate why an individual candidate elected with a minority of the votes should inevitably be replaced with an individual from the same party. The rules of the game don’t restrict the selectors in that way and the Republicans have no track record of Corinthian behaviour to justify such an approach. Indeed, they have only just railroaded through a deeply flawed candidate onto the Supreme Court using brute majoritarianism.
The minority of the votes is - as has been stated by various people - irrelevant
My view is that the appropriate thing to do if there is a requirement to replace one of other of these roles for the house to act as an agent on behalf of the electoral college. The voters have said “we want the candidate of party X”, the EC has done its part and the House should feel morally obligated not to over ride the wishes of the electorate.
I'm genuinely struggling with knowing when rules are rules and must be followed to the letter and when people should ignore what is codified in the laws of the country and go with the 'morally correct' option.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
Don't remind her supporters, they'll go all Deloré.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
Much depends on whether anti-EU or pro-EU Conservatives end up in charge.
Up to quite recently I was convinced we would Leave next March, deal or no deal but that CJEU has been a game changer.
Dominic Grieve will die on a hill for the EU. How many other Conservatives think likewise?
Jo Johnson, Sarah Wollaston, Anna Soubry to name three further patriots who put the UK before party.
I know you're just trolling but it is sad that there are as many as 4 deluded EU lovers in our party who can't wait to sell our nation out to Brussels at every possible opportunity. Truly their treachery is complete.
It's likely to be a Conservative government that takes England into the Euro.
Lol. I honestly think you'd be happier living in Berlin or some other lefty EUphile city. We're never going to join the Euro and once we're out we're never going to join again, no matter how much TSE likes to troll about no deal leading to the country joining the Euro. The fact that you believe his trolling shows just how blinkered you are and how little you know about this country and especially the party.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
Your side is the side using a nerve agent on the streets of Britain.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
Oh dear...possibly the lowest of low point of posts that have arrived on this site this year...and this is saying a lot
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
Your side is the side using a nerve agent on the streets of Britain.
Your side is the side that has let in 3m illegal immigrants into Europe that have raped, murdered and bombed their way through the continent. Let's call it even.
No Deal is dead, finito, sine die, a law professor at the finest university in the world is helping to stop it.
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
That really does remind me of the Unionists threatening to veto the Mutiny Act over Home Rule in 1913, and not in a good way.
Own goal here; this coming to pass would cement a harder Brexit. If the UK can't collect VAT, it is unable to co-ordinate VAT administration with RoI under the EU's sixth VAT directive, meaning Varadkar and Coveney have to build a god damned wall and collect it themselves at the border.
Apart from that, Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
Your side is the side using a nerve agent on the streets of Britain.
Your side is the side that has let in 3m illegal immigrants into Europe that have raped, murdered and bombed their way through the continent. Let's call it even.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
Your side is the side using a nerve agent on the streets of Britain.
Your side is the side that has let in 3m illegal immigrants into Europe that have raped, murdered and bombed their way through the continent. Let's call it even.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
Your side is the side using a nerve agent on the streets of Britain.
Your side is the side that has let in 3m illegal immigrants into Europe that have raped, murdered and bombed their way through the continent. Let's call it even.
Christ on a bike, Max, that's about as barmy a post as I've ever read on here.
@tse if their love and loyalty for the EU is as you suggest, then they must accept that such love and loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters, and a parting of the ways is necessary.
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
At this point I'd rather befriend Putin than the Britain hating shits in Brussels. Your side is the side of Junker, selmayr and Barnier. Your side is the side of Merkel, who has destabilised the whole continent. Your side seeks to sell this nation out to this lot so Tony Blair doesn't lose his place on the gravy train.
Your side is the side using a nerve agent on the streets of Britain.
Your side is the side that has let in 3m illegal immigrants into Europe that have raped, murdered and bombed their way through the continent. Let's call it even.
That possibly takes it...I thought your last post reached a depressing low...but this post. Well done comrade. You exceed yourself
The greatest of all Tories, Mrs Thatcher, governed as a very pro European politician.
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
If the WA fails to pass the Commons and May, as I suspect, switches to a policy of managed No Deal, will you continue to support the Government?
Second question, if the Government decides to introduce legislation revoking A50, would you support it even if it comes at an electoral price for the Conservatives?
Comments
It's more than 200/1 in my eyes though since the Senate won't impeach anyone and make Pelosi POTUS even if Trump is uberguilty.
I trust you'll be cheering on the Arse on Saturday?
They are clearly happy with the idea of the party who controls the houses replacing the elected party with one of their own should the situation arise.
And in any event the EU has said that Brits will be able to take up employment in a member state, but, as I understand it only one. A Brit who gets a job in France will not, as they can now, decide to move on to Spain.
Jeremy Corbyn has been named in an annual list of the top ten antisemitic incidents around the world.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a human rights organisation which researches the Holocaust, placed Mr Corbyn fourth in the list.
The Labour leader was dogged by accusations of antisemitism for much of the summer after The Times’s revelation that he had hosted an event comparing Israel to the Nazis. This was followed by claims that he had been present as a wreath was laid for Palestinians involved in the Black September terrorist group.
The centre, which is based in Los Angeles, wrote: “Allegations of antisemitism on the part of key members and officials of the UK’s Labour Party officials have piled up in recent years, injecting the world’s oldest hatred into the mainstream of society. Party leader Jeremy Corbyn stands directly responsible.
“In July Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers published a joint article warning of ‘the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Corbyn government’. A poll conducted at the end of the summer concluded that 40 per cent of the Jewish community would consider leaving the UK if Labour took the election.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-and-labour-on-simon-wiesenthal-centres-antisemitism-list-820lv57kn
MPs seeking another Brexit vote could curtail the government’s power to collect taxes unless Theresa May agrees to call a fresh referendum.
The plan is contained in a report on new ways to force a second referendum by the Best for Britain campaign group. It is backed by Dominic Grieve, the leading pro-EU Conservative, and includes advice from David Howarth, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge.
Under current law if Mrs May’s deal is not approved by parliament before the end of March then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. One of four options proposed in the report is to force the government to replace no deal as its default option with a referendum.
To do so MPs would try to amend the finance bill when it returns to the Commons on January 8. The government needs this bill to pass to authorise the collection of annual taxes. But under the plans pro-EU MPs would table an amendment “making future taxation conditional on holding a referendum (with an option to remain)”. If there is no majority for that, MPs would then “unite those who want a [referendum] with those who want to rule out no deal.
“It would work by removing the power to collect the annual taxes unless either a deal had been approved . . . or a referendum had been arranged.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tax-move-could-offer-hope-for-second-brexit-vote-backers-pzd8pk7tj
2014 is still seared on my brain.
It'll be nice for Spurs to win the Premier League just before Poch does one to Manchester United.
The suggestion that 40% of British Jews could move if Corbyn became PM is beyond ridiculous
https://www.survation.com/new-poll-of-british-jews-highlights-tensions-between-labour-and-the-jewish-community/
Here's the write up of the poll
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/nearly-40-per-cent-of-british-jews-would-seriously-consider-emigrating-if-corbyn-became-pm-1.469270
This dipshittery, are you talking about Putin approved No Deal Brexit?
However, it does then pose another problem. Does a referendum occur via an extension of the Article 50 period, or revocation of Article 50?
An extension requires unanimity which gives every EU27 country a veto.
Thanks to the brilliant CJEU we can unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Elon Musk has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against him by British cave diver Vern Unsworth, arguing his "over-the-top insults" should not be taken as statements of fact.
Lawyers for Mr Musk claimed that Twitter, where he first insulted Mr Unsworth, was a "rough-and-tumble" platform, and that the site was "a social networking website infamous for invective and hyperbole".
"The reasonable reader would not have believed that Musk – without ever having met Unsworth, in the midst of a schoolyard spat on social media, and from 8,000 miles afar – was conveying that he was in possession of private knowledge that Unsworth was sexually attracted to children or engaged with sex acts with children," said court papers first reported by BuzzFeed.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/12/27/elon-musk-files-motion-dismiss-defamation-lawsuit-paedo-claims/
I thought that's what we voted for...
(innocent face)
https://twitter.com/BelTel/status/1078289397483589633
In a separate election, for a different organisation, with a different constitutional role, the voters select other politicians
Do you not conceive that they might want a President from one party and a legislature controlled by the other?
To allow the legislature to replace the President with someone from a different party strikesme as flying in the face of the express intention of the voters
When will those who oppose Trump / Brexit get it that trying to get your desired outcome by use of legalese and procedures is likely to backfire spectacularly?
If push comes to (a very extreme) shove, bear in mind a high proportion of the UK / US armed forces come from what would be deemed to be Brexit-y / Trump regions. If I was a right-on Trump / Brexit-hater, I would not rely on those troops to follow your orders if the sh1t hit the fan.
Bork was an appalling candidate, even if you ignored his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.
He was a supporter of States levying a Poll Tax.
The rules for replacing the president are self-contained. The Republicans have shown not the slightest interest in working to the spirit of the rules rather than to their letter. Why should the Democrats do differently?
Hopefully the Democrats have learnt their lesson and won't take their own voters and States for granted again.
More fool me for expecting a lawyer to know the difference between law and justice I suppose
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-antisemitism-political-parties I found those Survation figures unfathomable.
Interestingly 26% of British Jews voted for Corbyn yet 40% would consider leaving the country if he got in. Doesn't speak well for Jewish solidarity!
A much more intelligible poll
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-antisemitism-political-parties
The fact it would have caused untold additional damage was a detail.
Or to put it another way - which is worse, some short-term disruption to medical supplies, or a total shutdown of the NHS?
If my fellow Remainers cannot see how crazy this would be, then it's no wonder we're getting into such a mess.
Firstly Musk apologised, then later repeated the accusation to media reports (off the record), and unforced by any interaction with Mr Unsworth.
Secondly, there were plenty of people on the 'net stating that the accusations were probably true, mainly because Musk is a hero who 'knew' something about Unsworth.
Thirdly, this story will always be linked to Unsworth. Musk's apology-then-reiteration made things worse.
Fourthly, I'm unsure he's thought this argument through: I'm sure it's easy to think of an accusation that might be made about a white South African such as Musk on a 'rough-and-tumble' platform ...
Musk should just accept he did something stupid and try to get any monies paid to charities. I might suggest the various cave and mine rescue organisations around the world might be good ones.
Much depends on whether anti-EU or pro-EU Conservatives end up in charge.
"This is plainly libellous. Damages will be enormous."
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1078332810103009280
The case is simple:
1. the major parties nominate candidates for the Presidency (I’m ignoring the theoretical possibility of an independent winning for simplicity)
2. Voters indicate a preference for the presidential candidates of one or other of the parties
3. On the basis of the votes cast an electoral college is formed
4. The Electors then cast their votes as set out in state legislation (I believe in most cases they are tied - at least on the first ballot)
5. This results in the choice of a President and his running mate is appointed VP
My view is that the appropriate thing to do if there is a requirement to replace one of other of these roles for the house to act as an agent on behalf of the electoral college. The voters have said “we want the candidate of party X”, the EC has done its part and the House should feel morally obligated not to over ride the wishes of the electorate.
Apart from that, Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/27/eighteen-numbers-that-explain-trumps-2018-223558
1. Number of campaign rallies Trump held in 2018: 44 [1]
2. Number of times he visited one of his golf clubs: 67 [6]
3. Number of war zones visited: 1
4. Number of 2018 general election candidates Trump endorsed: 90 [2]
5. Percentage of those candidates who won: 55
6. Percentage increase from 2017 to 2018 of tweets from @realDonaldTrump: 32 [3]
7. Percentage increase from 2017 to 2018 in references to “witch hunt”: 620 [3]
8. Percentage decrease from 2017 to 2018 in references to the stock market: 54 [3]
9. Number of Cabinet secretaries who were removed or quit: 10 [4]
10. Percentage of Trump’s executive staff that has turned over in first two years: 65 [5]
11. Number of presidents who’ve had more than one chief of staff in their first two years: 4 [5]
12. Number of presidents other than Trump who have had three: 0 [5]
13. Number of jobs gained in 2018 (through November): 2.28 million [7]
14. Number of those jobs (approx.) that were in coal mines: 1,100 [7]
15. Percentage increase in average hourly earnings in 2018 (as of November): 3.1 [7]
16. Percentage increase in U.S. trade deficit since Trump took office: 18 [8]
17. Number of books about Trump that were best-sellers in 2018: 25 [9]
18. Number of them that were favorable to Trump: 10
(b) I thought it wasn’t the remainder of the term but until the next scheduled election (ie 2 years)
Great Tories lead, not follow their party.
The Single Market was one of Thatcher's finest achievements and plenty of Tories are waking up to the fact the UK's departure from the Single Market cheers up the enemies of the UK like Vladimir Putin and Jeremy Corbyn.
As a person who enjoys the odd prediction, it's always nice when they come off but you have to be honest and admit it when you call it wrong.
POLITOLOGUE in the King George - didn't jump well enough, made a couple of bad mistakes and was struggling from four out.
I also said I thought the FTSE100 would rebound sharply from the pre-Christmas slide and put on 600 points in the three trading sessions before the end of the year. That's now 700 points in two sessions after another sharp fall today. Almost all the gains recorded since Trump since the 2016 US election have been reversed.
Oil prices (WTI and Brent Crude) have given up half of yesterday's big gains.
I may not be as keen as Antifrank to do 2019 predictions.
Never change, Max.
Second question, if the Government decides to introduce legislation revoking A50, would you support it even if it comes at an electoral price for the Conservatives?