Telegraph says the AG is looking at Fiona Onasanya's sentence for undue leniency.
A 3-month sentence means that with good behaviour she could be out by mid-March ready to vote on the PM's nth iteration of the WA deal. Imagine if it were her vote to tie and Bercow went against the PM with a casting vote.
Is there anyone who thinks the sentence wasn't unduly lenient ?
Almost all the PB Conservatives now support May's deal - some enthusiastically and some more grudgingly so - yet a large proportion of Conservative politicians oppose it and very few have publicly supported it.
Why is there this difference between PB Conservatives and Conservative politicians.
Plenty have supported it. Sensible Cons MPs. There are still many left.
Utterly bizarre behaviour from May, frankly. The one benefit she might have gotten when the EU rejected her deal was that the ERG's line that the backstop is negotiable would have been much harder to defend. But now she's handed them the perfect excuse, on a silver platter.
Telegraph says the AG is looking at Fiona Onasanya's sentence for undue leniency.
A 3-month sentence means that with good behaviour she could be out by mid-March ready to vote on the PM's nth iteration of the WA deal. Imagine if it were her vote to tie and Bercow went against the PM with a casting vote.
Is there anyone who thinks the sentence wasn't unduly lenient ?
The number of people who though the sentence was unduly lenient can be summarised thus:
Almost all the PB Conservatives now support May's deal - some enthusiastically and some more grudgingly so - yet a large proportion of Conservative politicians oppose it and very few have publicly supported it.
Why is there this difference between PB Conservatives and Conservative politicians.
We aren’t pitching for votes and/or political careers
Almost all the PB Conservatives now support May's deal - some enthusiastically and some more grudgingly so - yet a large proportion of Conservative politicians oppose it and very few have publicly supported it.
Why is there this difference between PB Conservatives and Conservative politicians.
Plenty have supported it. Sensible Cons MPs. There are still many left.
I am a sensible conservative, not an ultra Brexiteer who need to join UKIP
If the EU really want May's deal to pass they should make it clear that they will not agree an extension to A50 under any circumstances other than to enable the passing of the legislation to enact an agreed deal.
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Telegraph says the AG is looking at Fiona Onasanya's sentence for undue leniency.
A 3-month sentence means that with good behaviour she could be out by mid-March ready to vote on the PM's nth iteration of the WA deal. Imagine if it were her vote to tie and Bercow went against the PM with a casting vote.
Is there anyone who thinks the sentence wasn't unduly lenient ?
It wasn't lenient - the judge had the option not to send her to prison at all. The fact that she has received a prison sentence now makes life very difficult for her. I'm not complaining about that, but making the sentence longer would make little difference.
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
I think the presumption is that some kind of State of Emergency would come into force after a no deal Brexit. Why not just bring an invocation.of the Civil Contingencies Act forward to March 21st, sweep away Miller and sign off the May deal anyway?
If you can do it quickly enough the howls of betrayal, talks of coups and subsequent defenestration would be moot.
Almost all the PB Conservatives now support May's deal - some enthusiastically and some more grudgingly so - yet a large proportion of Conservative politicians oppose it and very few have publicly supported it.
Why is there this difference between PB Conservatives and Conservative politicians.
We aren’t pitching for votes and/or political careers
So is being a posturing arsehole an advantage if you wish to progress in the Conservative party ?
I think the presumption is that some kind of State of Emergency would come into force after a no deal Brexit. Why not just bring an invocation.of the Civil Contingencies Act forward to March 21st, sweep away Miller and sign off the May deal anyway?
If you can do it quickly enough the bowls of betrayal, talks of coups and subsequent defenestration would be moot.
I thought the meaningful vote was separate from Miller?
Telegraph says the AG is looking at Fiona Onasanya's sentence for undue leniency.
A 3-month sentence means that with good behaviour she could be out by mid-March ready to vote on the PM's nth iteration of the WA deal. Imagine if it were her vote to tie and Bercow went against the PM with a casting vote.
Is there anyone who thinks the sentence wasn't unduly lenient ?
It wasn't lenient - the judge had the option not to send her to prison at all. The fact that she has received a prison sentence now makes life very difficult for her. I'm not complaining about that, but making the sentence longer would make little difference.
Difficult, isn't it? You can't send someone away for longer just because their crime was particularly stupid and dull-witted; there's no overwhelming public protection issue; rehab in six months is the same as rehab in three (none); three months inside is the same deterrent as six; it was about middle of the road for sentencing guidelines; FO is almost certain to be recalled as an MP and struck off the roll by the SRA; and it was sufficiently high-profile that one expects the judge considered his sentencing remarks extremely closely.
But at the same time, she'll be out for the last game of the VI Nations, which doesn't sit easily with one's justice-o-meter.
Almost all the PB Conservatives now support May's deal - some enthusiastically and some more grudgingly so - yet a large proportion of Conservative politicians oppose it and very few have publicly supported it.
Why is there this difference between PB Conservatives and Conservative politicians.
We aren’t pitching for votes and/or political careers
So is being a posturing arsehole an advantage if you wish to progress in the Conservative party ?
TBF I think that applies to most political parties not just the Tories
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
Presumably with a permanent Customs Union included, May's deal would receive enough backing from Labour and Tories who want to avoid no deal. So why not go that route for now?
Presumably "a permanent Customs Union" is not actually permanent forever and we could withdraw from it after the transition period if it were in the Conservative manifesto at the next GE and they won.
Corbyns BREXIT is the only alternative to No Deal IMO
I think the presumption is that some kind of State of Emergency would come into force after a no deal Brexit. Why not just bring an invocation.of the Civil Contingencies Act forward to March 21st, sweep away Miller and sign off the May deal anyway?
If you can do it quickly enough the bowls of betrayal, talks of coups and subsequent defenestration would be moot.
I thought the meaningful vote was separate from Miller?
You might be right, the Miller case was about 30 years ago and my memory falls.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I think the proportion of food we import is about one third, not 80%.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I think the proportion of food we import is about one third, not 80%.
About half and slowly rising
It's probably not that we can't produce the food ourselves, just that it's cheaper to import it at the moment.
Presumably with a permanent Customs Union included, May's deal would receive enough backing from Labour and Tories who want to avoid no deal. So why not go that route for now?
Presumably "a permanent Customs Union" is not actually permanent forever and we could withdraw from it after the transition period if it were in the Conservative manifesto at the next GE and they won.
Corbyns BREXIT is the only alternative to No Deal IMO
Presumably with a permanent Customs Union included, May's deal would receive enough backing from Labour and Tories who want to avoid no deal. So why not go that route for now?
Presumably "a permanent Customs Union" is not actually permanent forever and we could withdraw from it after the transition period if it were in the Conservative manifesto at the next GE and they won.
Indeed.
On the other hand a Labour government could join a CU after it had won a general election (which is presumably what Labour expect to do in the next year or two).
As of right now that more than slightly fortuitous point at OT last night is looking a lot better than it did this morning.
Yes, but a lot happened in the last ten minutes of that game -what might still happen tonight?
Hence the reference to right now. Chelsea are looking to be in a difficult place. I wonder how the manager's attempts to inspire his team are going tonight. Spurs may get something yet.
Sarri won't last the season.
Don't bet on Puel being next manager to go. He is safe until summer, and maybe another season. This is a work in progress, and Top knows it.
I don't know Puel does to attract the negative press. Quite why Southampton sacked him I don't know.
The frustrating thing is that he is a really clever tactician, and can play a masterful game. Unfortunately Puel mostly does this at away games, with turgid play at home, which is what most fans see. It was the same at Southampton. Puel was brought in to cut the wage bill and bring through some youngsters. The Bro with the 'Fro, Hamza Choudhary, for example. Watch him take out Mane.
The last roll of the avoid No Deal dice is looking like a GE frankly.
There seems to be a money no object drive on waiting lists across several Tryusts that I know are skint. GE is plan B.
Has that happened before and any ideas as to why ?
No modern pol wants a Blair moment when someone's mother accosted him during a GE about clearing her own mother's piss up from the hospital bed with a clothe.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I think the proportion of food we import is about one third, not 80%.
About half and slowly rising
It's probably not that we can't produce the food ourselves, just that it's cheaper to import it at the moment.
Go on then. Replace about half the UK's food supply in 58 days...
Telegraph says the AG is looking at Fiona Onasanya's sentence for undue leniency.
A 3-month sentence means that with good behaviour she could be out by mid-March ready to vote on the PM's nth iteration of the WA deal. Imagine if it were her vote to tie and Bercow went against the PM with a casting vote.
Is there anyone who thinks the sentence wasn't unduly lenient ?
I thought it was rather harsh. For a politician wanting to advance their career telling lies is de rigeuer.
I think the presumption is that some kind of State of Emergency would come into force after a no deal Brexit. Why not just bring an invocation.of the Civil Contingencies Act forward to March 21st, sweep away Miller and sign off the May deal anyway?
If you can do it quickly enough the howls of betrayal, talks of coups and subsequent defenestration would be moot.
I think we should go full-on Palpatine. At least he made the landspeeders run on time.
As of right now that more than slightly fortuitous point at OT last night is looking a lot better than it did this morning.
Yes, but a lot happened in the last ten minutes of that game -what might still happen tonight?
Hence the reference to right now. Chelsea are looking to be in a difficult place. I wonder how the manager's attempts to inspire his team are going tonight. Spurs may get something yet.
Sarri won't last the season.
Don't bet on Puel being next manager to go. He is safe until summer, and maybe another season. This is a work in progress, and Top knows it.
I don't know Puel does to attract the negative press. Quite why Southampton sacked him I don't know.
The frustrating thing is that he is a really clever tactician, and can play a masterful game. Unfortunately Puel mostly does this at away games, with turgid play at home, which is what most fans see. It was the same at Southampton. Puel was brought in to cut the wage bill and bring through some youngsters. The Bro with the 'Fro, Hamza Choudhary, for example. Watch him take out Mane.
If the EU really want May's deal to pass they should make it clear that they will not agree an extension to A50 under any circumstances other than to enable the passing of the legislation to enact an agreed deal.
Thing is there must be a significant block of EU thinking that we might just call the whole thing off, certainly until a couple of days ago that must have been at the back of many minds across the EU. That's looking a lot less likely now, but has the EU realised that yet?
So if both the UK and EU want to avoid no deal, then some compromise has to be found very shortly.
It is not an agreed deal. The negotiators might have agreed it but not the people who had to vote on it. Its not agreed until it passes the legislatures.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I think the proportion of food we import is about one third, not 80%.
About half and slowly rising
It's probably not that we can't produce the food ourselves, just that it's cheaper to import it at the moment.
Go on then. Replace about half the UK's food supply in 58 days...
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think the presumption is that some kind of State of Emergency would come into force after a no deal Brexit. Why not just bring an invocation.of the Civil Contingencies Act forward to March 21st, sweep away Miller and sign off the May deal anyway?
If you can do it quickly enough the howls of betrayal, talks of coups and subsequent defenestration would be moot.
I think we should go full-on Palpatine. At least he made the landspeeders run on time.
Well we are building a second death star at the moment... No Tie Fighters yet mind you.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I think the proportion of food we import is about one third, not 80%.
About half and slowly rising
It's probably not that we can't produce the food ourselves, just that it's cheaper to import it at the moment.
Go on then. Replace about half the UK's food supply in 58 days...
Letwin on Peston says there could be a cross party consensus for a Customs Union and Single Market elements which he would support but Dorries says she would prefer No Deal to a Customs Union, Nandy backs Letwin
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I'm sure they'll extend to allow for legislation if the deal has been agreed. Perhaps for a referendum, but is that likely now?
Otherwise if they are serious about not renegotiating, what purpose does an extension serve? In that case there's a simple choice to be made between Deal, No Deal and Revocation, and that choice can be made in a day.
The ERG will be counting the days. As long as the EU doesn’t wibble, in a matter of weeks No Deal and Theresa’s doom will be certainties.
Watching a programme on BBC today about the English Civil War, and it occurred to me that there is definitely something 'puritanical' about many people's desire for Brexit. Some of the vox pop in recent weeks has seen people welcoming food shortages ("people eat too much anyway, it'll do them good, toughen them up, be like in the war", etc.). May others - remainers who have become disillusioned with any ability to pull back from the brink - have become mired in fatalism and gallows humour.
Perhaps that's why the arguments have become so entrenched. They've taken on an almost religious fervour with each side claiming salvation, and the other, damnation.
(Sorry, been re-reading Eric Hoffer's 'The Ordeal of Change' and in a philosophical and somewhat downbeat mood)
Here's a phrase I haven't heard in a while: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". What on earth happened to that? Did the EU decide that everything was agreed back in November?
Here's a phrase I haven't heard in a while: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". What on earth happened to that? Did the EU decide that everything was agreed back in November?
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think a 3 month extension is fairly likely. After all, if May's (probably unchanged deal) does not pass in two weeks time and it looks like we are crashing out, what is the downside to the EU offering us a 3 month extension, regardless of the chances of it producing a positive outcome. They have nothing to lose by offering the extension and May is not going to want to be seen as giving up and making no deal crash out a certainty, by refusing the extension.
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
Here's a phrase I haven't heard in a while: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". What on earth happened to that? Did the EU decide that everything was agreed back in November?
Yup, so did the British, that's why it's called the Withdrawal *Agreement*.
In the event that the EU side agree to the British requests to resume negotiations with the aim of changing the agreement, everything previously agreed becomes unagreed, which is why the Spanish are saying, "We heard the British parliament wants to reopen negotiations? Because we want to talk about Gibraltar"...
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think a 3 month extension is fairly likely. After all, if May's (probably unchanged deal) does not pass in two weeks time and it looks like we are crashing out, what is the downside to the EU offering us a 3 month extension, regardless of the chances of it producing a positive outcome. They have nothing to lose by offering the extension and May is not going to want to be seen as giving up and making no deal crash out a certainty, by refusing the extension.
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
The downside is that we screw up the European Parliamentary elections numbers as we would still be a member.
Here's a phrase I haven't heard in a while: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". What on earth happened to that? Did the EU decide that everything was agreed back in November?
Yup, so did the British, that's why it's called the Withdrawal *Agreement*.
In the event that the EU side agree to the British requests to resume negotiations with the aim of changing the agreement, everything previously agreed becomes unagreed, which is why the Spanish are saying, "We heard the British parliament wants to reopen negotiations? Because we want to talk about Gibraltar"...
Yeah, I get that. Except, we didn't actually sign it, so it wasn't "agreed"!
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I think the proportion of food we import is about one third, not 80%.
About half and slowly rising
It's probably not that we can't produce the food ourselves, just that it's cheaper to import it at the moment.
Go on then. Replace about half the UK's food supply in 58 days...
Overseas isn't the EU. Even if we import garlic from China as it's cheaper there leaving the EU won't mean we suddenly can't get garlic.
Furthermore EU exports to the UK won't drop to zero.
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think a 3 month extension is fairly likely. After all, if May's (probably unchanged deal) does not pass in two weeks time and it looks like we are crashing out, what is the downside to the EU offering us a 3 month extension, regardless of the chances of it producing a positive outcome. They have nothing to lose by offering the extension and May is not going to want to be seen as giving up and making no deal crash out a certainty, by refusing the extension.
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
The downside is that we screw up the European Parliamentary elections numbers as we would still be a member.
The new parliament doesn't sit until June so if you have a deal, I don't think it would be a problem to extend up until then.
It gets a bit hairier if you're extending without knowing what happens next, because the British don't know whether they need to hold the elections or not, but you can at least take a few extra weeks before you run into that. And running the election on the old numbers wouldn't be the end of the world, if it came to that.
Are those refugees permitted to work though? I remember someone telling me that there are still Palestinian refugees in Jordan from the Six Day War who live in camps and aren’t allowed to work
This isn't true. Palestinians are somewhat integrated into Jordanian society. There are and have been Palestinians in the cabinet and the king is married to one!
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
This is complicated by the fact that a plain reading of the text of these documents is insufficient to determine their legal implications. This is particularly the case when they must be read in the light of other laws, e.g. the HRA, which can force quite a different meaning to what a "lay" reading would suggest - even a reasonably intelligent MP who performs a diligent and thorough reading couldn't be expected to grasp all the fine points, unless he or she happens to be a QC in the relevant area, perhaps. And legal implications are quite separate from e.g. economic or social implications, for which appropriate policy analysis documents would also have to be read.
In another example, there was quite an interesting BBC piece about whether the GFA actually says anything about a "hard border", since we are constantly being told that such a border would "violate" it. Overall, they couldn't find any words where it actually says so, but on the other hand there seemed to be a "spirit" to the agreement that had taken on a life of its own and which there's a perfectly reasonable case for it being inconsistent with a hard border (depending on how one defines such a beast, which seems to be a good fraction of the problem here).
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I'm sure they'll extend to allow for legislation if the deal has been agreed. Perhaps for a referendum, but is that likely now?
Otherwise if they are serious about not renegotiating, what purpose does an extension serve? In that case there's a simple choice to be made between Deal, No Deal and Revocation, and that choice can be made in a day.
The putative extension is because the UK has not made sufficient preparation for any form of exit. There was an article the other day about how there are several major pieces of legislation that have to be done, and only one has been done...and the Lords sent it back. There's been so much kerfuffle about Deal/No deal that this has been overlooked.
The point of my bet was to insure myself against no deal. Since Betfair's 9/4 on leaving was the same or close to the other high-street shops odds on no-deal, it was a good proxy. And if the extension is for a deal, then no problem: I lose the bet, but I gain as GBP crawls back to ~$1.40, so I'm relaxed about that. But an extension AND no deal is not impossible - indeed given the gossip about the Con chairmen, quite probable. If that happens then I lose the bet and GBP heads to $1.15.
People bang on about how side X is bad, or how a deal is good, or EU is teh evul. But the money side of things is important and must be addressed, Unfortunately trying to maximise the profit (or more prosaically, minimise the loss) is genuinely difficult and despite my efforts I may lose quite a lot. So not good. A stressful 58 days ahead...
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think a 3 month extension is fairly likely. After all, if May's (probably unchanged deal) does not pass in two weeks time and it looks like we are crashing out, what is the downside to the EU offering us a 3 month extension, regardless of the chances of it producing a positive outcome. They have nothing to lose by offering the extension and May is not going to want to be seen as giving up and making no deal crash out a certainty, by refusing the extension.
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
The downside is that we screw up the European Parliamentary elections numbers as we would still be a member.
New EU parliament does not sit until early July. If we had a 3 month extension, it is 95% certain the outcome would either be a deal or no deal crash out. Either way, we would not be needing any EU MP's.
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
This is complicated by the fact that a plain reading of the text of these documents is insufficient to determine their legal implications. This is particularly the case when they must be read in the light of other laws, e.g. the HRA, which can force quite a different meaning to what a "lay" reading would suggest - even a reasonably intelligent MP who performs a diligent and thorough reading couldn't be expected to grasp all the fine points, unless he or she happens to be a QC in the relevant area, perhaps. And legal implications are quite separate from e.g. economic or social implications, for which appropriate policy analysis documents would also have to be read.
In another example, there was quite an interesting BBC piece about whether the GFA actually says anything about a "hard border", since we are constantly being told that such a border would "violate" it. Overall, they couldn't find any words where it actually says so, but on the other hand there seemed to be a "spirit" to the agreement that had taken on a life of its own and which there's a perfectly reasonable case for it being inconsistent with a hard border (depending on how one defines such a beast, which seems to be a good fraction of the problem here).
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think a 3 month extension is fairly likely. After all, if May's (probably unchanged deal) does not pass in two weeks time and it looks like we are crashing out, what is the downside to the EU offering us a 3 month extension, regardless of the chances of it producing a positive outcome. They have nothing to lose by offering the extension and May is not going to want to be seen as giving up and making no deal crash out a certainty, by refusing the extension.
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
How would you rate the probability of an extension AND no deal? My arse is hanging out on that one.
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Perhaps the bit preventing customs checks was cut to limit the page count?
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
And as we know yesterday the Tories don't care about the GFA or any damage they cause in Ireland
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
Quite a hard-hitting attack line, sadly. If I were an MP on the up, I think I might take speed-reading training, so that if I am willing to sacrifice enough weekends and evenings I can at least claim "But I've read this legislation from start to finish - have you?!" and hope that closes a few hecklers down. However, I doubt it would do anything to raise my effectiveness as an MP, even to spot duds and pitfalls embedded in the new legislation that it's theoretically a big part of my job description to look out for.
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Perhaps the bit preventing customs checks was cut to limit the page count?
Why is it explicitly based on both countries being partners in the EU?
Are those refugees permitted to work though? I remember someone telling me that there are still Palestinian refugees in Jordan from the Six Day War who live in camps and aren’t allowed to work
This isn't true. Palestinians are somewhat integrated into Jordanian society. There are and have been Palestinians in the cabinet and the king is married to one!
From what I know (limited), you're both right (in terms of the posts shown - I don't know the context because I didn't see the original discussion). There is (I believe) some disquiet in certain circles that the next King will effectively be half Palestinian and therefore much more inclined to accelerate the integration process. If given full rights, they make up a (slight) majority of the Jordanian population.
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think a 3 month extension is fairly likely. After all, if May's (probably unchanged deal) does not pass in two weeks time and it looks like we are crashing out, what is the downside to the EU offering us a 3 month extension, regardless of the chances of it producing a positive outcome. They have nothing to lose by offering the extension and May is not going to want to be seen as giving up and making no deal crash out a certainty, by refusing the extension.
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
How would you rate the probability of an extension AND no deal? My arse is hanging out on that one.
Probably about the same odds as the Betfair no deal market which is currently just a bit higher than 3/1.
I cannot see us leaving on March 29th with no deal, because, as explained earlier, the EU would have nothing to lose by offering us a 3 month extension and May would have to be very brave to turn it down, if offered.
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Perhaps the bit preventing customs checks was cut to limit the page count?
Why is it explicitly based on both countries being partners in the EU?
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
Quite a hard-hitting attack line, sadly. If I were an MP on the up, I think I might take speed-reading training, so that if I am willing to sacrifice enough weekends and evenings I can at least claim "But I've read this legislation from start to finish - have you?!" and hope that closes a few hecklers down. However, I doubt it would do anything to raise my effectiveness as an MP, even to spot duds and pitfalls embedded in the new legislation that it's theoretically a big part of my job description to look out for.
I remember once finding a serious logical error - obviously stemming from a typo - in a misdrafted Bill. I pointed it out to the Table Office, who were amused, grateful and irritated in equal measure - "Normally we're supposed to spot this sort of thing, you shouldn't be doing it".
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Perhaps the bit preventing customs checks was cut to limit the page count?
Why is it explicitly based on both countries being partners in the EU?
#CorbynsCustomsUnion is trending and thats just in the Cabinet
Maybe I am a cynic, but Jezza is offering that as his red line as he knows the ERG and associates will never agree.
So, he gets to his beloved 'Tory No Deal' with not a single bit of his wretched DNA anywhere on the the body of the UK economy.
I think there's probably a majority for it, namely 90% of the Opposition and 50% of the Conservatives. It would however split the Tory party. Yoiu can't really expect JC to regard that as unfortunate.
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think a 3 month extension is fairly likely. After all, if May's (probably unchanged deal) does not pass in two weeks time and it looks like we are crashing out, what is the downside to the EU offering us a 3 month extension, regardless of the chances of it producing a positive outcome. They have nothing to lose by offering the extension and May is not going to want to be seen as giving up and making no deal crash out a certainty, by refusing the extension.
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
How would you rate the probability of an extension AND no deal? My arse is hanging out on that one.
Probably about the same odds as the Betfair no deal market which is currently just a bit higher than 3/1.
I cannot see us leaving on March 29th with no deal, because, as explained earlier, the EU would have nothing to lose by offering us a 3 month extension and May would have to be very brave to turn it down, if offered.
3/1 is a probability of 25% assuming no overround. Does that sound right?
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
Quite a hard-hitting attack line, sadly. If I were an MP on the up, I think I might take speed-reading training, so that if I am willing to sacrifice enough weekends and evenings I can at least claim "But I've read this legislation from start to finish - have you?!" and hope that closes a few hecklers down. However, I doubt it would do anything to raise my effectiveness as an MP, even to spot duds and pitfalls embedded in the new legislation that it's theoretically a big part of my job description to look out for.
I remember once finding a serious logical error - obviously stemming from a typo - in a misdrafted Bill. I pointed it out to the Table Office, who were amused, grateful and irritated in equal measure - "Normally we're supposed to spot this sort of thing, you shouldn't be doing it".
Well done!
I do wonder if one of the root causes of having "too many" lawyers in parliament is that there's a belief (somewhere, amongst some bunch of people or another .... perhaps amongst lawyers!) that MPs are legislators so you really need law-people, rather than people with diverse experiences who can understand what effect this all this law might have once it gets out there and hits the real world. Provided that both the lawyers and non-lawyers among the legislature get access to top-class legal analysis (after all, even lawyers only are expert on their own specialities) there shouldn't, in principle, be too much need for them to be getting their hands dirty with the legal niceties.
Are those refugees permitted to work though? I remember someone telling me that there are still Palestinian refugees in Jordan from the Six Day War who live in camps and aren’t allowed to work
This isn't true. Palestinians are somewhat integrated into Jordanian society. There are and have been Palestinians in the cabinet and the king is married to one!
From what I know (limited), you're both right (in terms of the posts shown - I don't know the context because I didn't see the original discussion). There is (I believe) some disquiet in certain circles that the next King will effectively be half Palestinian and therefore much more inclined to accelerate the integration process. If given full rights, they make up a (slight) majority of the Jordanian population.
Am off to Israel and Palestine next week for a fortnight, should be interesting to see the situation at first hand for the first time
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Perhaps the bit preventing customs checks was cut to limit the page count?
Why is it explicitly based on both countries being partners in the EU?
Because we were both members when it was signed?
We were both members of the UN but that wasn’t fundamental to the agreement in the way EU membership was.
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Perhaps the bit preventing customs checks was cut to limit the page count?
Why is it explicitly based on both countries being partners in the EU?
Because we were both members when it was signed?
We were both members of the UN but that wasn’t fundamental to the agreement in the way EU membership was.
It's not fundamental, it was just a statement about how we were partners in the EU. Unless you think the GFA is going to lapse come Brexit day?
#CorbynsCustomsUnion is trending and thats just in the Cabinet
Maybe I am a cynic, but Jezza is offering that as his red line as he knows the ERG and associates will never agree.
So, he gets to his beloved 'Tory No Deal' with not a single bit of his wretched DNA anywhere on the the body of the UK economy.
I think there's probably a majority for it, namely 90% of the Opposition and 50% of the Conservatives. It would however split the Tory party. Yoiu can't really expect JC to regard that as unfortunate.
There is a majority in Parliament for permanent Customs Union I think, Letwin for example came out for that tonight on Peston.
Most of the Tory Party won't back it though and nor will the DUP unless it exactly mirrors the terms of the backstop for NI in GB, so if May proceeds on that basis and accepts a Commons vote for it I would expect a general election sooner rather than later and if Corbyn becomes PM a hard Brexiteer to take over as leader of the opposition
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I can understand other companies warning about delays to imports but the amusing thing about the supermarkets and fast food companies is they have spent years banging on about their fresh 100% British produce. How long is McDonald's 100% British Beef going to spend stuck at Calais?
I believe just because something is advertised as being British produce does not mean that it is. As long as it was processed in the UK at one point, it can be labelled as British regardless of source.
The UK imports around 80% of its food, including 50% of meat. The largest source of meat is Irish beef.
I think the proportion of food we import is about one third, not 80%.
About half and slowly rising
It's probably not that we can't produce the food ourselves, just that it's cheaper to import it at the moment.
Go on then. Replace about half the UK's food supply in 58 days...
Why?
For the record, McDonalds actually claims its beef is British or Irish.
Barnier's statement a week ago seems pretty close to that: "It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
Right now asking for that is the Mother of All Unicorns.
Maybe that's telling us the betting markets are overestimating the likelihood of an extension (implied probability currently 70%).
I don't think an extension is that improbable: it keeps being mentioned. This is discomfiting to me as I have just placed a £500bet at 9/4 on departure by the 29th. But there y'go.
I think a 3 month extension is fairly likely. After all, if May's (probably unchanged deal) does not pass in two weeks time and it looks like we are crashing out, what is the downside to the EU offering us a 3 month extension, regardless of the chances of it producing a positive outcome. They have nothing to lose by offering the extension and May is not going to want to be seen as giving up and making no deal crash out a certainty, by refusing the extension.
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
How would you rate the probability of an extension AND no deal? My arse is hanging out on that one.
Probably about the same odds as the Betfair no deal market which is currently just a bit higher than 3/1.
I cannot see us leaving on March 29th with no deal, because, as explained earlier, the EU would have nothing to lose by offering us a 3 month extension and May would have to be very brave to turn it down, if offered.
3/1 is a probability of 25% assuming no overround. Does that sound right?
Sounds about right to me.
Others might disagree, but if it gets close to March 29th with no deal signed, neither the EU or May are going to want to accept the blame for the outcome. Therefore the EU will want o be seen as bending over backwards to give the UK a chance of reaching an agreement, even if it looks unlikely. May, even if she thinks further time futile will want to be seen as not giving up on reaching a deal. Also even if she thinks there is no chance of a deal, it will at least give us 3 months preparation time for a crash out.
Not writing in defence of those concerned here, more a philosophical question (not a rhetorical one, either).
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
Yup, this is a dumb attack line, non-lawyers should be reading summaries written by lawyers, and sometimes lawyers should too...
The Good Friday Agreement is a bit different in that a copy of it was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and it was approved in a referendum, and it was central to his job. It’s only 35 pages.
Perhaps the bit preventing customs checks was cut to limit the page count?
Why is it explicitly based on both countries being partners in the EU?
Because we were both members when it was signed?
We were both members of the UN but that wasn’t fundamental to the agreement in the way EU membership was.
It's not fundamental, it was just a statement about how we were partners in the EU. Unless you think the GFA is going to lapse come Brexit day?
Why does the agreement also discuss political representation of the North-South council in the EU?
#CorbynsCustomsUnion is trending and thats just in the Cabinet
Maybe I am a cynic, but Jezza is offering that as his red line as he knows the ERG and associates will never agree.
So, he gets to his beloved 'Tory No Deal' with not a single bit of his wretched DNA anywhere on the the body of the UK economy.
I think there's probably a majority for it, namely 90% of the Opposition and 50% of the Conservatives. It would however split the Tory party. Yoiu can't really expect JC to regard that as unfortunate.
Yes, I can.
There are very few moments in political history that actually matter, other than day to day fluff. This is one of them, and Jezza is no statesman. He needs to rise above petty point scoring crap.
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
I think we'll continue co-operation as friendly neighbours.
The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.
EU policy will no longer be implemented, and there won't be any relevant meetings at which the Council's views need to be represented since we'll no longer be members.
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
I think we'll continue co-operation as friendly neighbours.
The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.
EU policy will no longer be implemented, and there won't be any relevant meetings at which the Council's views need to be represented since we'll no longer be members.
“We”? But everyone in Northern Ireland has a right to exclusive Irish citizenship. Ireland is not leaving the EU.
How is leaving the single market and customs union “developing still further” our close co-operation as members of the EU?
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
I think we'll continue co-operation as friendly neighbours.
The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.
EU policy will no longer be implemented, and there won't be any relevant meetings at which the Council's views need to be represented since we'll no longer be members.
“We”? But everyone in Northern Ireland has a right to exclusive Irish citizenship. Ireland is not leaving the EU.
How is leaving the single market and customs union “developing still further” our close co-operation as members of the EU?
I assume relevant meetings are where the UK and Ireland discuss things relating to EU policy as it related to NI. It's possible that council representation will continue after Brexit, but there may not be much to discuss.
As for developing our relationship. No reason why friendly relationship can't continue, unless the direction of travel had to be the two countries ending up in the same state?
In any case, none of this points to the GFA being predicated on either country's EU membership. And I think even you will acknowledge that the GFA will not be put into abeyance by Brexit.
Telegraph says the AG is looking at Fiona Onasanya's sentence for undue leniency.
A 3-month sentence means that with good behaviour she could be out by mid-March ready to vote on the PM's nth iteration of the WA deal. Imagine if it were her vote to tie and Bercow went against the PM with a casting vote.
Is there anyone who thinks the sentence wasn't unduly lenient ?
It wasn't lenient - the judge had the option not to send her to prison at all. The fact that she has received a prison sentence now makes life very difficult for her. I'm not complaining about that, but making the sentence longer would make little difference.
This is one of those where a sentence say of perhaps a year would be appropriate, with all the trappings it entails, but ~ 6 weeks inside prison would be enough.
At a major trade show in Dubai this week. When even the Chinese think your government are crazy you know you are in trouble. Hard brexit will hit before March 29th. Chinese already saying they will not ship orders until after that date and things are clear. This means basics such as medical swabs and drapes are going to be much harder to find. These items are as important as the fancy drugs in terms of performing an operation. The economy is beginning to go into deep freeze.
Comments
I despair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRIr9MNmCwU
Hrrrm. I'm a democrat at heart, and all things being equal would like to see the referendum being honoured.
...... but damn, would I enjoy seeing the expression on ERG faces if we end up with it getting overturned.
"It needs a stable majority in London for all laws related to Brexit that need to be adopted."
May's deal with backstop 27%
May's deal without backstop 34%
No deal Brexit 39%
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-public-prefer-a-deal-instead-of-hard-brexit-11622551
If you can do it quickly enough the howls of betrayal, talks of coups and subsequent defenestration would be moot.
But at the same time, she'll be out for the last game of the VI Nations, which doesn't sit easily with one's justice-o-meter.
OK, ''sweep away whatever needs to be swept away'
On the other hand a Labour government could join a CU after it had won a general election (which is presumably what Labour expect to do in the next year or two).
https://twitter.com/GrimTwter/status/1090732768030527488?s=19
Or was that The Thick Of It?
To be honest, I can no longer tell.
So, he gets to his beloved 'Tory No Deal' with not a single bit of his wretched DNA anywhere on the the body of the UK economy.
https://www.politico.eu/article/calais-president-well-be-ready-even-for-a-no-deal-brexit/
Otherwise if they are serious about not renegotiating, what purpose does an extension serve? In that case there's a simple choice to be made between Deal, No Deal and Revocation, and that choice can be made in a day.
Perhaps that's why the arguments have become so entrenched. They've taken on an almost religious fervour with each side claiming salvation, and the other, damnation.
(Sorry, been re-reading Eric Hoffer's 'The Ordeal of Change' and in a philosophical and somewhat downbeat mood)
She wants to come out of this as blameless as possible and spurning the chance of a 3 month extension is unlikely.
In the event that the EU side agree to the British requests to resume negotiations with the aim of changing the agreement, everything previously agreed becomes unagreed, which is why the Spanish are saying, "We heard the British parliament wants to reopen negotiations? Because we want to talk about Gibraltar"...
Furthermore EU exports to the UK won't drop to zero.
It gets a bit hairier if you're extending without knowing what happens next, because the British don't know whether they need to hold the elections or not, but you can at least take a few extra weeks before you run into that. And running the election on the old numbers wouldn't be the end of the world, if it came to that.
This isn't true. Palestinians are somewhat integrated into Jordanian society. There are and have been Palestinians in the cabinet and the king is married to one!
Given the reams of laws that modern governments seem to produce, including a small but still substantial fraction with significant constitutional import, just how much of the country's law do we expect politicians to have ever read, let alone understood or memorised?
Similarly, what about the treaties the country has signed up to? Many of which are of serious length.
This is complicated by the fact that a plain reading of the text of these documents is insufficient to determine their legal implications. This is particularly the case when they must be read in the light of other laws, e.g. the HRA, which can force quite a different meaning to what a "lay" reading would suggest - even a reasonably intelligent MP who performs a diligent and thorough reading couldn't be expected to grasp all the fine points, unless he or she happens to be a QC in the relevant area, perhaps. And legal implications are quite separate from e.g. economic or social implications, for which appropriate policy analysis documents would also have to be read.
In another example, there was quite an interesting BBC piece about whether the GFA actually says anything about a "hard border", since we are constantly being told that such a border would "violate" it. Overall, they couldn't find any words where it actually says so, but on the other hand there seemed to be a "spirit" to the agreement that had taken on a life of its own and which there's a perfectly reasonable case for it being inconsistent with a hard border (depending on how one defines such a beast, which seems to be a good fraction of the problem here).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529
Just how much of the grand and inflated body of our laws and treaties do we expect our MPs to be cognisant of, fluent in, vaguely aware of the existence of, memorised from top to bottom, able to summarise the take-aways in five bullet points, capable of making technically difficult arguments over in court? And which pieces in particular are absolutely 100% "must-have-reads"? (I'd argue there's a decent case that the Good Friday Agreement, HRA, various devolution legislation and EU treaties that would be in that category, but there's quite significant constitutional stuff in, say, the Bill of Rights of 1689, or the Acts of Union, that it would be regarded as too harsh to castigate anyone over for failing to take it as bedtime reading.)
The point of my bet was to insure myself against no deal. Since Betfair's 9/4 on leaving was the same or close to the other high-street shops odds on no-deal, it was a good proxy. And if the extension is for a deal, then no problem: I lose the bet, but I gain as GBP crawls back to ~$1.40, so I'm relaxed about that. But an extension AND no deal is not impossible - indeed given the gossip about the Con chairmen, quite probable. If that happens then I lose the bet and GBP heads to $1.15.
People bang on about how side X is bad, or how a deal is good, or EU is teh evul. But the money side of things is important and must be addressed, Unfortunately trying to maximise the profit (or more prosaically, minimise the loss) is genuinely difficult and despite my efforts I may lose quite a lot. So not good. A stressful 58 days ahead...
How Moscow lost Riyadh in 1938
Russian-Saudi relations could be very different today, if Stalin hadn't killed the Soviet ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/moscow-lost-riyadh-1938-171014113525997.html
I cannot see us leaving on March 29th with no deal, because, as explained earlier, the EU would have nothing to lose by offering us a 3 month extension and May would have to be very brave to turn it down, if offered.
I do wonder if one of the root causes of having "too many" lawyers in parliament is that there's a belief (somewhere, amongst some bunch of people or another .... perhaps amongst lawyers!) that MPs are legislators so you really need law-people, rather than people with diverse experiences who can understand what effect this all this law might have once it gets out there and hits the real world. Provided that both the lawyers and non-lawyers among the legislature get access to top-class legal analysis (after all, even lawyers only are expert on their own specialities) there shouldn't, in principle, be too much need for them to be getting their hands dirty with the legal niceties.
Most of the Tory Party won't back it though and nor will the DUP unless it exactly mirrors the terms of the backstop for NI in GB, so if May proceeds on that basis and accepts a Commons vote for it I would expect a general election sooner rather than later and if Corbyn becomes PM a hard Brexiteer to take over as leader of the opposition
Others might disagree, but if it gets close to March 29th with no deal signed, neither the EU or May are going to want to accept the blame for the outcome. Therefore the EU will want o be seen as bending over backwards to give the UK a chance of reaching an agreement, even if it looks unlikely. May, even if she thinks further time futile will want to be seen as not giving up on reaching a deal. Also even if she thinks there is no chance of a deal, it will at least give us 3 months preparation time for a crash out.
I presume you take the ignorant Vote Leave line.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/740860803855831040?s=21
There are very few moments in political history that actually matter, other than day to day fluff. This is one of them, and Jezza is no statesman. He needs to rise above petty point scoring crap.
The history books will not be kind.
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their
peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly
neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
I think we'll continue co-operation as friendly neighbours.
The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant
matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes
and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to
be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and
represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.
EU policy will no longer be implemented, and there won't be any relevant meetings at which the Council's views need to be represented since we'll no longer be members.
How is leaving the single market and customs union “developing still further” our close co-operation as members of the EU?
As for developing our relationship. No reason why friendly relationship can't continue, unless the direction of travel had to be the two countries ending up in the same state?
In any case, none of this points to the GFA being predicated on either country's EU membership. And I think even you will acknowledge that the GFA will not be put into abeyance by Brexit.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-amy-klobuchar-is-best-equipped-to-send-the-president-packing/ar-BBSYshc?ocid=News