As I understand it nobody who knows what is going on believes that a deal can be completed by the end of March (perhaps a little concerning that some in the Cabinet may be in the select group of people who are slower to figure things out than Liam Fox). The only way we leave on time is without a deal.
Late. Would have been first, but I delayed, prevaricated and engaged in a lot of displacement activity. So now it is inevitable. And in no way my fault.
I'd expect the odds on leaving on schedule to converge with odds for leaving without a withdrawal agreement, since by now they're more or less the same thing. We don't have time to legislate for the deal even if we sign it now.
TBH we don't have time to legislate for No Deal either, but that's our problem rather than the EU's - it wouldn't stop us leaving on time, just make it even more chaotic than it already would be.
The decision as to how long the delay will be is an interesting one. What the government won't want to do is have a delay and then come back for a second one. Which suggests they would be sensible to err on the longer side first time around.
Late. Would have been first, but I delayed, prevaricated and engaged in a lot of displacement activity. So now it is inevitable. And in no way my fault.
Displacement activity to avoid other displacement activities! Yeah, that sums May delaying for weeks before asking for the backstop to be changed quite well.
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
The decision as to how long the delay will be is an interesting one. What the government won't want to do is have a delay and then come back for a second one. Which suggests they would be sensible to err on the longer side first time around.
I think the only way any postponement would work would be if a deal had been done and agreed by Parliament. I can't see anyone with any sense objecting to a postponement simply to allow the necessary enabling legislation to pass.
Mind you I just used the the phrase 'anyone with any sense' in relation to MPs so not sure that is a realistic prospect.
The decision as to how long the delay will be is an interesting one. What the government won't want to do is have a delay and then come back for a second one. Which suggests they would be sensible to err on the longer side first time around.
I suppose it may depend on what legal manoeuvres can be devised to avoid it screwing up the Euro elections.
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Late. Would have been first, but I delayed, prevaricated and engaged in a lot of displacement activity. So now it is inevitable. And in no way my fault.
The betting markets have made a definite move away from Leave on Time/No Deal on Time, with all the talk about an extension. I'm not sure anything has really happened to change the probabilities of those events, though. The talk seems to be centring very much on the time needed for legislation after a deal has been agreed.
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
I placed a large bet on "Leave on time" on Wednesday. So these rumours of postponement fall into this category
I think your route to victory is if British politics continues to degenerate and the EU refuses an extension to get it over with.
If that link @Richard_Nabavi posted to the Guardian article is correct, they will accept an extension, even tho they fear a short extension without a deal.
So I'm fucked. Although to be honest it's not that bad IF an extension is accompanied with a deal, as strengthening GBP will easily offset the £500 loss, yay! But if we have an extension *and* no deal, then that's quite bad: projections are £1=$1.15 if no deal and that's too low to absorb. So I'm hoping.
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Or indeed the Elgin Marbles.
It might be interesting to work out what the full list of 27 sweeteners might look like.
The betting markets have made a definite move away from Leave on Time/No Deal on Time, with all the talk about an extension. I'm not sure anything has really happened to change the probabilities of those events, though. The talk seems to be centring very much on the time needed for legislation after a deal has been agreed.
I placed a large bet on "Leave on time" on Wednesday. So these rumours of postponement fall into this category
I think your route to victory is if British politics continues to degenerate and the EU refuses an extension to get it over with.
If that link @Richard_Nabavi posted to the Guardian article is correct, they will accept an extension, even tho they fear a short extension without a deal.
So I'm fucked. Although to be honest it's not that bad IF an extension is accompanied with a deal, as strengthening GBP will easily offset the £500 loss, yay! But if we have an extension *and* no deal, then that's quite bad: projections are £1=$1.15 if no deal and that's too low to absorb. So I'm hoping.
Yes, it's a shame that Betfair market isn't really what it pretends to be.
Judging by that article there seem to be some very mixed messages coming from the EU: (1) An extension beyond the Euro elections is unthinkable BUT they're afraid Theresa May may not have the courage to ask for a long enough extension; (2) Renegotiation is out of the question BUT it has all got to be rationally revisited.
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Funnily enough we believe in democracy
The Gibraltarians voted to remain close to the U.K. we won’t give them to Spain unless they request it. They’re not some fucking chess piece to hand over in a negotiation
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
A marvellous bit of that Guardian article: "In a call with Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, on Wednesday afternoon, May was asked to come up with “concrete proposals” but did not offer any new thinking, failing even to cite the previous suggestions of a time limit or unilateral exit mechanism."
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Or indeed the Elgin Marbles.
It might be interesting to work out what the full list of 27 sweeteners might look like.
TMay could agree to give up the rebate. I mean, it's only for a few weeks, it's not like it's the first of a series of ever-longer can-kicks designed to avoid ever implementing this whole impossibly ludicrous endeavor.
I placed a large bet on "Leave on time" on Wednesday. So these rumours of postponement fall into this category
I think your route to victory is if British politics continues to degenerate and the EU refuses an extension to get it over with.
If that link @Richard_Nabavi posted to the Guardian article is correct, they will accept an extension, even tho they fear a short extension without a deal.
So I'm fucked. Although to be honest it's not that bad IF an extension is accompanied with a deal, as strengthening GBP will easily offset the £500 loss, yay! But if we have an extension *and* no deal, then that's quite bad: projections are £1=$1.15 if no deal and that's too low to absorb. So I'm hoping.
Yes, it's a shame that Betfair market isn't really what it pretends to be.
Judging by that article there seem to be some very mixed messages coming from the EU: (1) An extension beyond the Euro elections is unthinkable BUT they're afraid Theresa May may not have the courage to ask for a long enough extension; (2) Renegotiation is out of the question BUT it has all got to be rationally revisited.
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Funnily enough we believe in democracy
The Gibraltarians voted to remain close to the U.K. we won’t give them to Spain unless they request it. They’re not some fucking chess piece to hand over in a negotiation
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Or indeed the Elgin Marbles.
It might be interesting to work out what the full list of 27 sweeteners might look like.
TMay could agree to give up the rebate. I mean, it's only for a few weeks, it's not like it's the first of a series of ever-longer can-kicks designed to avoid ever implementing this whole impossibly ludicrous endeavor.
We've still got some bits of Cyprus, haven't we? We could give those back.
Maybe we could upgrade Malta's George Cross - to a life peerage or something ...
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Or indeed the Elgin Marbles.
It might be interesting to work out what the full list of 27 sweeteners might look like.
I reckon this should be of the form:
On the first day of No Deal the UK gave to me, The Rock and a base military (Spain) On the second day of No Deal the UK gave to me, two peeing chavs and the Rock and a base military (Belgium) Five drained Fens (Netherlands, thanks Cornelius) Six pineapple pizzas Fifteen Elgin Marbles
Portugal - the port houses of Vila Nova de Gaia Poland - something WW2
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Funnily enough we believe in democracy
The Gibraltarians voted to remain close to the U.K. we won’t give them to Spain unless they request it. They’re not some fucking chess piece to hand over in a negotiation
They voted 96% to remain in the EU.
Instead of Gibraltar, we could give them WilliamGlenn.
"It's not like the British actually *need*" WilliamGlenn.
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Funnily enough we believe in democracy
The Gibraltarians voted to remain close to the U.K. we won’t give them to Spain unless they request it. They’re not some fucking chess piece to hand over in a negotiation
In the spirit of today's earlier suggestion of forming a new EU round an exited Britain, we could give Spain to Gibraltar?
Why don't we leave NI and Scotland in customs union (they both voted remain) and build a hard customs border between England and Scotland - the SNP would be delighted wouldn't they?
There's talk of a summit about a week before the deadline, isn't there?
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
There might be more flexibility than that, it's not like the British actually *need* Gibraltar.
Funnily enough we believe in democracy
The Gibraltarians voted to remain close to the U.K. we won’t give them to Spain unless they request it. They’re not some fucking chess piece to hand over in a negotiation
They voted 96% to remain in the EU.
Instead of Gibraltar, we could give them WilliamGlenn.
"It's not like the British actually *need*" WilliamGlenn.
Don't want to dox anyone but @WilliamGlenn was already promised to New Zealand in a side-note to the Washington Declaration.
The EU is going to ask "An extension? To do WHAT, exactly? Jerk us around some more?"
The extension will only come AFTER we have agreed to their terms.
Now, assume that May gets nothing new at all. Will the ERG fold? Will Labour MPs?
No Deal and a 29th March departure looks ever more likely.
Juncker and Verhofstadt made clear this week their terms for renegotiation were a permanent customs union ie Labour policy and one the 17 Tory MPs who voted against No Deal would also likely back as a last resort
The EU is going to ask "An extension? To do WHAT, exactly? Jerk us around some more?"
The extension will only come AFTER we have agreed to their terms.
Now, assume that May gets nothing new at all. Will the ERG fold? Will Labour MPs?
No Deal and a 29th March departure looks ever more likely.
Juncker and Verhofstadt made clear this week their terms for renegotiation were a permanent customs union ie Labour policy and one the 17 Tory MPs who voted against No Deal would also likely back as a last resort
That's *one* thing that would do it - basically the point is that they're not going to go back to banging their heads on the brick wall of the same old TMay red lines, but if any of the previous red lines have gone away then that would open up possibilities that the previous negotiations hadn't explored and they'd be up for talking some more.
The EU is going to ask "An extension? To do WHAT, exactly? Jerk us around some more?"
The extension will only come AFTER we have agreed to their terms.
Now, assume that May gets nothing new at all. Will the ERG fold? Will Labour MPs?
No Deal and a 29th March departure looks ever more likely.
Juncker and Verhofstadt made clear this week their terms for renegotiation were a permanent customs union ie Labour policy and one the 17 Tory MPs who voted against No Deal would also likely back as a last resort
That's *one* thing that would do it - basically the point is that they're not going to go back to banging their heads on the brick wall of the same old TMay red lines, but if any of the previous red lines have gone away then that would open up possibilities that the previous negotiations hadn't explored and they'd be up for talking some more.
It will be Parliament that will have to take the lead though
The EU is going to ask "An extension? To do WHAT, exactly? Jerk us around some more?"
The extension will only come AFTER we have agreed to their terms.
Now, assume that May gets nothing new at all. Will the ERG fold? Will Labour MPs?
No Deal and a 29th March departure looks ever more likely.
Juncker and Verhofstadt made clear this week their terms for renegotiation were a permanent customs union ie Labour policy and one the 17 Tory MPs who voted against No Deal would also likely back as a last resort
That's *one* thing that would do it - basically the point is that they're not going to go back to banging their heads on the brick wall of the same old TMay red lines, but if any of the previous red lines have gone away then that would open up possibilities that the previous negotiations hadn't explored and they'd be up for talking some more.
It will be Parliament that will have to take the lead though
I dunno, I don't think TMay has any particular principles beyond what will get her through the next 24 hours.
PM haggling with parliamentary factions to find a proposal that will get the votes they need is much more workable in the British system than MPs trying to freelance something against the wishes of the government.
The EU is going to ask "An extension? To do WHAT, exactly? Jerk us around some more?"
The extension will only come AFTER we have agreed to their terms.
Now, assume that May gets nothing new at all. Will the ERG fold? Will Labour MPs?
No Deal and a 29th March departure looks ever more likely.
Juncker and Verhofstadt made clear this week their terms for renegotiation were a permanent customs union ie Labour policy and one the 17 Tory MPs who voted against No Deal would also likely back as a last resort
That's *one* thing that would do it - basically the point is that they're not going to go back to banging their heads on the brick wall of the same old TMay red lines, but if any of the previous red lines have gone away then that would open up possibilities that the previous negotiations hadn't explored and they'd be up for talking some more.
It will be Parliament that will have to take the lead though
I dunno, I don't think TMay has any particular principles beyond what will get her through the next 24 hours.
PM haggling with parliamentary factions to find a proposal that will get the votes they need is much more workable in the British system than MPs trying to freelance something against the wishes of the government.
Much more workable maybe but I think a clash between legislature and executive sooner or later, remember May voted against the Spelman option to ensure No Deal was kept as an option but the Commons still voted for Spelman's amendment and to rule out No Deal by 318 to 310 votes
I dunno, I don't think TMay has any particular principles beyond what will get her through the next 24 hours.
In fairness, that's always true of Prime Ministers without a working majority.
This is true.
I guess what's unusual about the current situation is that the coalition she needs to keep her job only partly overlaps with the coalition she needs to stop the economy catching fire. But at some point shortly after Exit Day she's scheduled to lose her job anyhow, so I wouldn't be surprised if she eventually pivots.
Despite vaulting into the top tier of Democratic primary contenders, O’Rourke said family concerns and the “exhaustion” of his Texas Senate run are still weighing on him.
“There’s an exhaustion after an effort like that, that I’m learning is hard to recover from,” the former Texas congressman said at a local speaker series event. “You don’t snap back.”
I dunno, I don't think TMay has any particular principles beyond what will get her through the next 24 hours.
In fairness, that's always true of Prime Ministers without a working majority.
This is true.
I guess what's unusual about the current situation is that the coalition she needs to keep her job only partly overlaps with the coalition she needs to stop the economy catching fire. But at some point shortly after Exit Day she's scheduled to lose her job anyhow, so I wouldn't be surprised if she eventually pivots.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
The EU is going to ask "An extension? To do WHAT, exactly? Jerk us around some more?"
The extension will only come AFTER we have agreed to their terms.
Now, assume that May gets nothing new at all. Will the ERG fold? Will Labour MPs?
No Deal and a 29th March departure looks ever more likely.
No PM could allow that to happen, certainly not one that has promised all and sundry in private that it won't happen, and one who has been told it shouldn't happen by parliament. In your scenario a delay is to avoid the bluff on not revoking being called (unless you are a ConHome conspiracist in which case revocation is Mrs M's cunning end game).
So it seems like the UK will want an extension, and not have any obvious alternative move. The key question is whether the EU end will agree. OK, the EU has 28 ends, but simplifying...
1) They could say yes. At the end of the first extension nothing will have changed, so it probably leads to another extension. This could literally go on for years. Eventually the UK either gives up on Brexit, changes its government or agrees to the the deal, any of which is fine. In the meantime it's still a member, but you can make decisions pretty much without it. The uncertainty isn't good for anyone, but it's not terrible, and business investment is gradually draining from the UK to surrounding countries, which is good for surrounding countries.
2) They could say no, you only get an extension if something changes. Hopefully that something will be a Deal vs Remain referendum, but it's not at all clear that TMay would do that, and if she did whether she'd have the votes. Alternatively maybe the opposition MPs blink and agree to the deal, but the British parliament seems quite disfunctional, so that's not something you can rely on. The PM could unilaterally revoke, but she probably won't, and if she did you risk the Brexiters setting bombs off in Brussels. No Deal is terrible for everyone, especially Ireland, so I don't think any of the member states will want to risk getting the blame.
3) They could say yes, but only if they get other concessions. In terms of pure national interest hardball this might seem attractive, but since this is most likely the first of a series of extensions, you're opening the door to constant negotiation drama: If Spain want to get X, they have to let Estonia try to get Y, and somebody might accidentally paint themselves into demanding something and blow the whole thing up. So I think people will prefer not to open that door.
You can't quite be sure of something that needs unanimity but I think they'd pick (1).
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
It's not that long ago that the Recorder of Bristol told a jury that somebody who tore a lump of iron off a road sign and used it to hit somebody with as part of a fight was not guilty of affray.
So it seems like the UK will want an extension, and not have any obvious alternative move. The key question is whether the EU end will agree. OK, the EU has 28 ends, but simplifying...
1) They could say yes. At the end of the first extension nothing will have changed, so it probably leads to another extension. This could literally go on for years. Eventually the UK either gives up on Brexit, changes its government or agrees to the the deal, any of which is fine. In the meantime it's still a member, but you can make decisions pretty much without it. The uncertainty isn't good for anyone, but it's not terrible, and business investment is gradually draining from the UK to surrounding countries, which is good for surrounding countries.
2) They could say no, you only get an extension if something changes. Hopefully that something will be a Deal vs Remain referendum, but it's not at all clear that TMay would do that, and if she did whether she'd have the votes. Alternatively maybe the opposition MPs blink and agree to the deal, but the British parliament seems quite disfunctional, so that's not something you can rely on. The PM could unilaterally revoke, but she probably won't, and if she did you risk the Brexiters setting bombs off in Brussels. No Deal is terrible for everyone, especially Ireland, so I don't think any of the member states will want to risk getting the blame.
3) They could say yes, but only if they get other concessions. In terms of pure national interest hardball this might seem attractive, but since this is most likely the first of a series of extensions, you're opening the door to constant negotiation drama: If Spain want to get X, they have to let Estonia try to get Y, and somebody might accidentally paint themselves into demanding something and blow the whole thing up. So I think people will prefer not to open that door.
You can't quite be sure of something that needs unanimity but I think they'd pick (1).
If they pick 1) would it run up against Euro elections?
If they pick 1) would it run up against Euro elections?
Yes, the first extension might be designed to finish before the Euro elections but the subsequent one would run into them, so the British would have to elect MEPs and the other countries wouldn't get their (fairly small) extra allocations.
Guy Verhofstadt might be annoyed at this but the European Parliament doesn't have a veto on Article 50 extensions like they do with the Withdrawal Agreement.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
I don't know anything about this case specifically but British newspaper reporting of court judgements is consistently astonishingly terrible, so it's worth chasing up the original judgement and reading that before you try the GCSE defence.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
Best of all, become a lawyer and an MP, especially one from a minority who is seen as a ‘role model within their community’. Judges now think those are mitigating rather than aggravating factors when sentencing.
So it seems like the UK will want an extension, and not have any obvious alternative move. The key question is whether the EU end will agree. OK, the EU has 28 ends, but simplifying...
1) They could say yes. At the end of the first extension nothing will have changed, so it probably leads to another extension. This could literally go on for years. Eventually the UK either gives up on Brexit, changes its government or agrees to the the deal, any of which is fine. In the meantime it's still a member, but you can make decisions pretty much without it. The uncertainty isn't good for anyone, but it's not terrible, and business investment is gradually draining from the UK to surrounding countries, which is good for surrounding countries.
2) They could say no, you only get an extension if something changes. Hopefully that something will be a Deal vs Remain referendum, but it's not at all clear that TMay would do that, and if she did whether she'd have the votes. Alternatively maybe the opposition MPs blink and agree to the deal, but the British parliament seems quite disfunctional, so that's not something you can rely on. The PM could unilaterally revoke, but she probably won't, and if she did you risk the Brexiters setting bombs off in Brussels. No Deal is terrible for everyone, especially Ireland, so I don't think any of the member states will want to risk getting the blame.
3) They could say yes, but only if they get other concessions. In terms of pure national interest hardball this might seem attractive, but since this is most likely the first of a series of extensions, you're opening the door to constant negotiation drama: If Spain want to get X, they have to let Estonia try to get Y, and somebody might accidentally paint themselves into demanding something and blow the whole thing up. So I think people will prefer not to open that door.
You can't quite be sure of something that needs unanimity but I think they'd pick (1).
If they pick 1) would it run up against Euro elections?
The EU Parliament, which needs to vote to ratify the same deal as the UK Parliament, and any other essential but related Brexit legislation, is dissolved on 23rd April and doesn’t convene again until 2nd July following the elections. That’s a big chunk of time missing from any three-month extension from 29th March.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
It's not that long ago that the Recorder of Bristol told a jury that somebody who tore a lump of iron off a road sign and used it to hit somebody with as part of a fight was not guilty of affray.
Doesn't 'affray' imply at least that two (or more) people were fighting. If Person A attacks Person B, who doesn't fight back, or hasn't otherwise attacked Person A, surely Person A may be guilty of 'assault', but there's been no 'affray'.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
It's not that long ago that the Recorder of Bristol told a jury that somebody who tore a lump of iron off a road sign and used it to hit somebody with as part of a fight was not guilty of affray.
Doesn't 'affray' imply at least that two (or more) people were fighting. If Person A attacks Person B, who doesn't fight back, or hasn't otherwise attacked Person A, surely Person A may be guilty of 'assault', but there's been no 'affray'.
Bear in mind of course that IANAL!
Well, there were three of them. So it met that critieria.
After that case however, there was a certain amount of comment on the mind-bending incompetence of the way the CPS had framed the charges.
The EU Parliament, which needs to vote to ratify the same deal as the UK Parliament, and any other essential but related Brexit legislation, is dissolved on 23rd April and doesn’t convene again until 2nd July following the elections. That’s a big chunk of time missing from any three-month extension from 29th March.
Good point, so if we're pretending there's going to be a deal soon you either have to do something crazy short like a couple of weeks, or push it right out to the end of July. It feels like less trouble to go straight to the end of July or later - I mean, who are we kidding?
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
It's not that long ago that the Recorder of Bristol told a jury that somebody who tore a lump of iron off a road sign and used it to hit somebody with as part of a fight was not guilty of affray.
Doesn't 'affray' imply at least that two (or more) people were fighting. If Person A attacks Person B, who doesn't fight back, or hasn't otherwise attacked Person A, surely Person A may be guilty of 'assault', but there's been no 'affray'.
Bear in mind of course that IANAL!
Well, there were three of them. So it met that critieria.
After that case however, there was a certain amount of comment on the mind-bending incompetence of the way the CPS had framed the charges.
Ah well, that I can believe.
Time for me to a) make my wife's morning coffee and b) set off to the gym. No snow here.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
Oh, and Good Morning everyone!
There is... and I was amazed at the words used by the Judge.. It rather depends on what the sentencing guidelines are for being involved in trying to dupe the police..
The EU Parliament, which needs to vote to ratify the same deal as the UK Parliament, and any other essential but related Brexit legislation, is dissolved on 23rd April and doesn’t convene again until 2nd July following the elections. That’s a big chunk of time missing from any three-month extension from 29th March.
Good point, so if we're pretending there's going to be a deal soon you either have to do something crazy short like a couple of weeks, or push it right out to the end of July. It feels like less trouble to go straight to the end of July or later - I mean, who are we kidding?
Oh hang on, no, what they might want to do is extend until say the end of April and pass the deal themselves without waiting for the British, then leave it to Britain to pass it by the (new) deadline. That has the benefit of putting paid to any remaining theories the British might have that the EU might agree to replace the backstop with a picture of Prince Philip or whatever.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
Oh, and Good Morning everyone!
There is... and I was amazed at the words used by the Judge.. It rather depends on what the sentencing guidelines are for being involved in trying to dupe the police..
The thing that puzzled me was how he said 'by any measure' Onasanya's crime was less serious than the Huhne case. Given Onasanya repeated her claims in court (Huhne didn't) tried to involve a third party unknowingly (Huhne didn't) was a solicitor as well as an MP (Huhne was neither at the time) and was also texting while driving (Huhne was never accused of that) his statement was not only incorrect it was as ludicrous as a Cooper amendment.
I think he probably meant that the element of conspiracy was an aggravating factor in the Huhne case that was absent in the Onasanya one - although I'd be dubious of that as well given the involvement of her brother - but really!
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
Oh, and Good Morning everyone!
There is... and I was amazed at the words used by the Judge.. It rather depends on what the sentencing guidelines are for being involved in trying to dupe the police..
The thing that puzzled me was how he said 'by any measure' Onasanya's crime was less serious than the Huhne case. Given Onasanya repeated her claims in court (Huhne didn't) tried to involve a third party unknowingly (Huhne didn't) was a solicitor as well as an MP (Huhne was neither at the time) and was also texting while driving (Huhne was never accused of that) his statement was not only incorrect it was as ludicrous as a Cooper amendment.
I think he probably meant that the element of conspiracy was an aggravating factor in the Huhne case that was absent in the Onasanya one - although I'd be dubious of that as well given the involvement of her brother - but really!
.. people who nicked televisions during the brief riots went to prison for longer.. some were given (IIRC) exemplary sentences. (BBC said av sentence 16.8 months.)
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
Best of all, become a lawyer and an MP, especially one from a minority who is seen as a ‘role model within their community’. Judges now think those are mitigating rather than aggravating factors when sentencing.
I take your point but if the Judge sees Onasanya as a role model given her position and crime then heaven help us and what on earth is the Judiciaries view of the BAME community if they think that sort of person is something to aspire to.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
Oh, and Good Morning everyone!
There is... and I was amazed at the words used by the Judge.. It rather depends on what the sentencing guidelines are for being involved in trying to dupe the police..
The thing that puzzled me was how he said 'by any measure' Onasanya's crime was less serious than the Huhne case. Given Onasanya repeated her claims in court (Huhne didn't) tried to involve a third party unknowingly (Huhne didn't) was a solicitor as well as an MP (Huhne was neither at the time) and was also texting while driving (Huhne was never accused of that) his statement was not only incorrect it was as ludicrous as a Cooper amendment.
I think he probably meant that the element of conspiracy was an aggravating factor in the Huhne case that was absent in the Onasanya one - although I'd be dubious of that as well given the involvement of her brother - but really!
.. people who nicked televisions during the brief riots went to prison for longer.. some were given (IIRC) exemplary sentences. (BBC said av sentence 16.8 months.)
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
Oh, and Good Morning everyone!
There is... and I was amazed at the words used by the Judge.. It rather depends on what the sentencing guidelines are for being involved in trying to dupe the police..
The thing that puzzled me was how he said 'by any measure' Onasanya's crime was less serious than the Huhne case. Given Onasanya repeated her claims in court (Huhne didn't) tried to involve a third party unknowingly (Huhne didn't) was a solicitor as well as an MP (Huhne was neither at the time) and was also texting while driving (Huhne was never accused of that) his statement was not only incorrect it was as ludicrous as a Cooper amendment.
I think he probably meant that the element of conspiracy was an aggravating factor in the Huhne case that was absent in the Onasanya one - although I'd be dubious of that as well given the involvement of her brother - but really!
It wasn't for the judge to acknowledge that Onasanya was a role model and sentence accordingly. It was for Onasanya to acknowledge she was a role model and to act accordingly.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
Oh, and Good Morning everyone!
There is... and I was amazed at the words used by the Judge.. It rather depends on what the sentencing guidelines are for being involved in trying to dupe the police..
That he said that she being a lawyer shouldn't count against her was particularly odd
I agree that the Onasanya sentence does seem odd compared to the Huhne/Pryce sentences.
On the other hand, I feel sorry for all of them. And I would not have sent any of them to prison.
I have wondered if a specific offence should be created with a penalty of something like a three year ban from driving.
But surely her conviction is not for a driving offence. It is perverting the course of justice. I don't see why a new special offence should be created for people who try to pass driving offences onto another driver. I do agree a jail sentence is pointless in this, and the Huhne/Pryce case. Community Service and a night time curfew would be a more appropriate payback.
So it seems like the UK will want an extension, and not have any obvious alternative move. The key question is whether the EU end will agree. OK, the EU has 28 ends, but simplifying...
1) They could say yes. At the end of the first extension nothing will have changed, so it probably leads to another extension. This could literally go on for years. Eventually the UK either gives up on Brexit, changes its government or agrees to the the deal, any of which is fine. In the meantime it's still a member, but you can make decisions pretty much without it. The uncertainty isn't good for anyone, but it's not terrible, and business investment is gradually draining from the UK to surrounding countries, which is good for surrounding countries.
2) They could say no, you only get an extension if something changes. Hopefully that something will be a Deal vs Remain referendum, but it's not at all clear that TMay would do that, and if she did whether she'd have the votes. Alternatively maybe the opposition MPs blink and agree to the deal, but the British parliament seems quite disfunctional, so that's not something you can rely on. The PM could unilaterally revoke, but she probably won't, and if she did you risk the Brexiters setting bombs off in Brussels. No Deal is terrible for everyone, especially Ireland, so I don't think any of the member states will want to risk getting the blame.
3) They could say yes, but only if they get other concessions. In terms of pure national interest hardball this might seem attractive, but since this is most likely the first of a series of extensions, you're opening the door to constant negotiation drama: If Spain want to get X, they have to let Estonia try to get Y, and somebody might accidentally paint themselves into demanding something and blow the whole thing up. So I think people will prefer not to open that door.
You can't quite be sure of something that needs unanimity but I think they'd pick (1).
If they pick 1) would it run up against Euro elections?
As usual EiT's analysis looks sound. I think they'll pick 1) at first, and that May will keep kicking the can down the road until (a) enough Labour MPs can be induced by pork barrel to switch or (b) the EU gets fed up.
The position about Euro elections is not as difficult as it looks. It is technically possible for Britain to simply to fail to hold elections. That could and probably would result in a complaint to the ECJ, but they are aware of the dynamics and will probably not rush to judgment. In the meantime, the UK seats would simply sit empty.
As predicted, the LDs gave the Tories a run for their money in yesterday's Surrey CC by-election, the Tories winning by 48% to 40%, much closer than before.
The EU is going to ask "An extension? To do WHAT, exactly? Jerk us around some more?"
The extension will only come AFTER we have agreed to their terms.
Now, assume that May gets nothing new at all. Will the ERG fold? Will Labour MPs?
No Deal and a 29th March departure looks ever more likely.
No PM could allow that to happen, certainly not one that has promised all and sundry in private that it won't happen
3 years ago you'd have confidently said that No PM could allow where we are now to happen, but it has.
You're main point appears to be "bad things can't happen because someone will stop it"
History teaches us otherwise.
That misses the point that Mrs M has tried, somewhat hamfistedly, to avoid ending up where she is now. Mostly by trying every trick in the book to avoid Parliament having any say.
Whereas revocation is, effectively, in her gift. And, as I said....
As predicted, the LDs gave the Tories a run for their money in yesterday's Surrey CC by-election, the Tories winning by 48% to 40%, much closer than before.
As predicted, the LDs gave the Tories a run for their money in yesterday's Surrey CC by-election, the Tories winning by 48% to 40%, much closer than before.
,,but still lost
I don't think anyone expected otherwise, it's a rich part of Surrey and was very safe.
It would have been grossly unfair to put the perpetrator in jail for causing someone else permanently disfiguring injuries and trauma - because he got good GCSE results.
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You have to wonder about our judges.
I gather there's an appeal against the leniency of Fiona Onasanya's sentence.
Oh, and Good Morning everyone!
There is... and I was amazed at the words used by the Judge.. It rather depends on what the sentencing guidelines are for being involved in trying to dupe the police..
The thing that puzzled me was how he said 'by any measure' Onasanya's crime was less serious than the Huhne case. Given Onasanya repeated her claims in court (Huhne didn't) tried to involve a third party unknowingly (Huhne didn't) was a solicitor as well as an MP (Huhne was neither at the time) and was also texting while driving (Huhne was never accused of that) his statement was not only incorrect it was as ludicrous as a Cooper amendment.
I think he probably meant that the element of conspiracy was an aggravating factor in the Huhne case that was absent in the Onasanya one - although I'd be dubious of that as well given the involvement of her brother - but really!
.. people who nicked televisions during the brief riots went to prison for longer.. some were given (IIRC) exemplary sentences. (BBC said av sentence 16.8 months.)
I expect MPs and solicitors to be held to a higher standard than most, and for examples to be set when they fall short. I expect the general public would share that view.
I have no problem with the sentence of the attacker of Sir Christopher Meyer. I don't see that much purpose would have been served sending him to jail on the facts as reported.
As predicted, the LDs gave the Tories a run for their money in yesterday's Surrey CC by-election, the Tories winning by 48% to 40%, much closer than before.
,,but still lost
I don't think anyone expected otherwise, it's a rich part of Surrey and was very safe.
but still LD's NOT winning here !! (Frankly the Tories do need a good kick up the arse.)
As predicted, the LDs gave the Tories a run for their money in yesterday's Surrey CC by-election, the Tories winning by 48% to 40%, much closer than before.
,,but still lost
I don't think anyone expected otherwise, it's a rich part of Surrey and was very safe.
but still LD's NOT winning here !! (Frankly the Tories do need a good kick up the arse.)
Apply the same swing in May and the Tories will earn your reward.
Mr. P, not too surprising, I imagine most places are simply shut.
Mr. B2, aye, I'm a little surprised we haven't heard anything (yet) of that nature from Austria et al. When their temperatures rise just a little, the feet of snow that fell there will cause fresh problems.
Comments
The culture wars are going to be entertaining. We do not forgive, we do not forget.
TBH we don't have time to legislate for No Deal either, but that's our problem rather than the EU's - it wouldn't stop us leaving on time, just make it even more chaotic than it already would be.
It seems quite likely Theresa May would return from that with the offer of a short extension provided the deal passes the Commons by the deadline, but not otherwise.
Mind you I just used the the phrase 'anyone with any sense' in relation to MPs so not sure that is a realistic prospect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqQ99s4Ywnw
The extension will only come AFTER we have agreed to their terms.
Now, assume that May gets nothing new at all. Will the ERG fold? Will Labour MPs?
No Deal and a 29th March departure looks ever more likely.
Sounds familiar
So I'm fucked. Although to be honest it's not that bad IF an extension is accompanied with a deal, as strengthening GBP will easily offset the £500 loss, yay! But if we have an extension *and* no deal, then that's quite bad: projections are £1=$1.15 if no deal and that's too low to absorb. So I'm hoping.
It might be interesting to work out what the full list of 27 sweeteners might look like.
Judging by that article there seem to be some very mixed messages coming from the EU:
(1) An extension beyond the Euro elections is unthinkable BUT they're afraid Theresa May may not have the courage to ask for a long enough extension;
(2) Renegotiation is out of the question BUT it has all got to be rationally revisited.
The Gibraltarians voted to remain close to the U.K. we won’t give them to Spain unless they request it. They’re not some fucking chess piece to hand over in a negotiation
"In a call with Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, on Wednesday afternoon, May was asked to come up with “concrete proposals” but did not offer any new thinking, failing even to cite the previous suggestions of a time limit or unilateral exit mechanism."
Thinking on feet not a strong point.
Maybe we could upgrade Malta's George Cross - to a life peerage or something ...
On the first day of No Deal the UK gave to me, The Rock and a base military (Spain)
On the second day of No Deal the UK gave to me, two peeing chavs and the Rock and a base military (Belgium)
Five drained Fens (Netherlands, thanks Cornelius)
Six pineapple pizzas
Fifteen Elgin Marbles
Portugal - the port houses of Vila Nova de Gaia
Poland - something WW2
"It's not like the British actually *need*" WilliamGlenn.
PM haggling with parliamentary factions to find a proposal that will get the votes they need is much more workable in the British system than MPs trying to freelance something against the wishes of the government.
I guess what's unusual about the current situation is that the coalition she needs to keep her job only partly overlaps with the coalition she needs to stop the economy catching fire. But at some point shortly after Exit Day she's scheduled to lose her job anyhow, so I wouldn't be surprised if she eventually pivots.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/25/orourke-2020-decision-months-away-1126571
Make sure you pass your exams - and judges will let you off.
You're main point appears to be "bad things can't happen because someone will stop it"
History teaches us otherwise.
1) They could say yes. At the end of the first extension nothing will have changed, so it probably leads to another extension. This could literally go on for years. Eventually the UK either gives up on Brexit, changes its government or agrees to the the deal, any of which is fine. In the meantime it's still a member, but you can make decisions pretty much without it. The uncertainty isn't good for anyone, but it's not terrible, and business investment is gradually draining from the UK to surrounding countries, which is good for surrounding countries.
2) They could say no, you only get an extension if something changes. Hopefully that something will be a Deal vs Remain referendum, but it's not at all clear that TMay would do that, and if she did whether she'd have the votes. Alternatively maybe the opposition MPs blink and agree to the deal, but the British parliament seems quite disfunctional, so that's not something you can rely on. The PM could unilaterally revoke, but she probably won't, and if she did you risk the Brexiters setting bombs off in Brussels. No Deal is terrible for everyone, especially Ireland, so I don't think any of the member states will want to risk getting the blame.
3) They could say yes, but only if they get other concessions. In terms of pure national interest hardball this might seem attractive, but since this is most likely the first of a series of extensions, you're opening the door to constant negotiation drama: If Spain want to get X, they have to let Estonia try to get Y, and somebody might accidentally paint themselves into demanding something and blow the whole thing up. So I think people will prefer not to open that door.
You can't quite be sure of something that needs unanimity but I think they'd pick (1).
Oh, and Good Morning everyone!
Guy Verhofstadt might be annoyed at this but the European Parliament doesn't have a veto on Article 50 extensions like they do with the Withdrawal Agreement.
Bear in mind of course that IANAL!
After that case however, there was a certain amount of comment on the mind-bending incompetence of the way the CPS had framed the charges.
Time for me to a) make my wife's morning coffee and b) set off to the gym. No snow here.
I think he probably meant that the element of conspiracy was an aggravating factor in the Huhne case that was absent in the Onasanya one - although I'd be dubious of that as well given the involvement of her brother - but really!
Looking rather frosty outside. But glad I'm not in Chicago right now.
I take your point but if the Judge sees Onasanya as a role model given her position and crime then heaven help us and what on earth is the Judiciaries view of the BAME community if they think that sort of person is something to aspire to.
He was the only one in the car park...
On the other hand, I feel sorry for all of them. And I would not have sent any of them to prison.
The position about Euro elections is not as difficult as it looks. It is technically possible for Britain to simply to fail to hold elections. That could and probably would result in a complaint to the ECJ, but they are aware of the dynamics and will probably not rush to judgment. In the meantime, the UK seats would simply sit empty.
Whereas revocation is, effectively, in her gift. And, as I said....
I have no problem with the sentence of the attacker of Sir Christopher Meyer. I don't see that much purpose would have been served sending him to jail on the facts as reported.
Any excuse to let another day tick by.
Mr. B2, aye, I'm a little surprised we haven't heard anything (yet) of that nature from Austria et al. When their temperatures rise just a little, the feet of snow that fell there will cause fresh problems.