We're not dumping her anywhere. We're leaving her where she is in Syria. Good riddance to her.
Bangladesh could have stripped her citizenship first but didn't, we beat them to the punch.
It's hard to strip someone of a citizenship, when you don't know they're a citizen
The Government are still trying to strip me of my EU citzenship on March 29th, just saying.
There's no such thing as EU citizenship.
Call it what you like people are losing their freedom of movement rights all so EU migration can be replaced by non EU migration !
The absurdity of Brexit !
Perhaps so, but the 'call it what you like' is an important point because people are complaining about losing citizenship, not just losing 'freedom of movement rights'. If the latter is granted by virtue of British citizenship (because we are members of the EU) and we are now losing it because we will no longer be members, that is perfectly reasonable to lament, but the citizenship someone held, British, remains the same, it's just not as attractive as it was.
Granted I am not a nationality expert, but if you are a citizen of X and that affords you privileges of being in club Y, then of course people will be upset about losing those privileges when you leave, but the X part has not changed and it is not a citizenship issue.
Fair point . You can’t be a citizen of the EU because citizenship is of a nation. In legal terms Brits aren’t citizens of the EU but I think it’s more an emotional thing .
Indeed in some of the more qualitative research done on EU attitudes it was aspects of feeling European and being part of something bigger that would be most missed by especially younger people.
I think also younger people to a degree view the world differently from older people , they’ve been brought up with open borders , immigration huge traveling opportunities and huge amounts of social media .
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
Probably. Although if we expand the question to include Lord Chancellor then its probably much, much further back.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't support any vote of no confidence. Either they'd be installing Corbyn as PM, or they'd cause a general election in which they'd vanish.
They could well install Corbyn as PM with the requirement of EUref2 if the alternative is hard Brexit
Which makes their objections to Corbyn ridiculous. "Okay, we think he's an anti-Semite, and an extreme left wing nutcase, but he wants to keep us in the EU, so he's alright after all."
TIG's aim above all is to stop hard Brexit at any cost and at any price, they may not like Corbyn or anti Semitic elements in Labour but it is Brexit they hate above all.
If May turns down EUref2 or refuses to shift to BINO and Labour agrees to the latter inevitably they will shift to Labour
Let them. It will show them up as fools and a united Conservative Party will be confronting a bickering multi-party coalition who've decided that anti-semifsm is not the deal-breaker that they said it was.
It would only be a united Tory Party behind No Deal if most of the anti hard Brexit element in the Tory Party had defected to TIG
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
1782 shurely, when the Northern and Southern Departments were re-organized into the Foreign and Home Offices?
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
Probably. Although if we expand the question to include Lord Chancellor then its probably much, much further back.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
The EU as they made clear last time could not care less about a GE unless a new government backs the Deal or pivots towards EUref2 or permanent Customs Union
Have you read your post. How can the EU foretell the result of a GE and it's outcomes
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
1782 shurely, when the Northern and Southern Departments were re-organized into the Foreign and Home Offices?
1782 was the Foreign and War, Colonial and Home Office, although the War Office included internal security and was therefore often called 'home office.' Portland, when he joined the Pitt government, was the first proper Home Secretary.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
Probably. Although if we expand the question to include Lord Chancellor then its probably much, much further back.
OK. Name some.
The Lord Chancellor was until Blair the head of the judiciary and until the nineteenth century he or the Home Secretary had final power of sentencing and appeal in all cases. I think they still have at least formal power over sentences.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
1782 shurely, when the Northern and Southern Departments were re-organized into the Foreign and Home Offices?
1782 was the Foreign and War, Colonial and Home Office, although the War Office included internal security and was therefore often called 'home office.' Portland, when he joined the Pitt government, was the first proper Home Secretary.
Hmm, wasn't War under the "Secretary at War" until 1794 who was not a Secretary of State and so junior to the two SoSes?
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
Really?
Name half a dozen, and then explain why we have a judiciary at all if there is nothing questionable about the executive carrying out the judiciary's function.
I'll give one example for now: Extradition.
The Home Secretary must sign off extraditions. The courts ruled Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the USA - the Home Secretary blocked it by refusing to sign off on it.
Was the Home Secretary wrong to overrule the courts and keep Gary McKinnon in this country?
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
Hopefully.
But it requires unanimity. Would be a great opportunity for say Spain to demand Gibraltar for instance.
If we really wanted to annoy Spain, we should persuade the EU to grant it similar status to Ceuta and Melilla. And then say we will talk about Gib when those are returned to Morocco.
A friend of ours is Moroccan-British and is quite passionate about Cueta and Melilla whenever the Spanish bring Gibraltar up. I've yet to dare ask her what her opinion on the Western Sahara is though.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
Probably. Although if we expand the question to include Lord Chancellor then its probably much, much further back.
OK. Name some.
The Lord Chancellor was until Blair the head of the judiciary and until the nineteenth century he or the Home Secretary had final power of sentencing and appeal in all cases. I think they still have at least formal power over sentences.
So not over primary questions of innocence or guilt, and not since 1800.
Saw Jezza on ITV news this evening (he was meeting the EU and claimed that Barnier is now "agitated" about NO Deal) and I've got to say unlike the claims on here last night that he was looking old and ill I thought he looked really well?
For a man of 69 he looks good - Must be all that home grown veg.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
1782 shurely, when the Northern and Southern Departments were re-organized into the Foreign and Home Offices?
1782 was the Foreign and War, Colonial and Home Office, although the War Office included internal security and was therefore often called 'home office.' Portland, when he joined the Pitt government, was the first proper Home Secretary.
Hmm, wasn't War under the "Secretary at War" until 1794 who was not a Secretary of State and so junior to the two SoSes?
There were distinct offices of Secretary at War and Secretary of War in the 19th century.
But in 1794 these offices were held by Dundas (Melville) who was an SoS and along with Grenville one of the most senior men in Pitt's government.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
Probably. Although if we expand the question to include Lord Chancellor then its probably much, much further back.
OK. Name some.
The Lord Chancellor was until Blair the head of the judiciary and until the nineteenth century he or the Home Secretary had final power of sentencing and appeal in all cases. I think they still have at least formal power over sentences.
So not over primary questions of innocence or guilt, and not since 1800.
We have juries for a reason.
The Court of Appeal was set up in 1907, actually. Until that they could.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
Probably. Although if we expand the question to include Lord Chancellor then its probably much, much further back.
OK. Name some.
The Lord Chancellor was until Blair the head of the judiciary and until the nineteenth century he or the Home Secretary had final power of sentencing and appeal in all cases. I think they still have at least formal power over sentences.
So not over primary questions of innocence or guilt, and not since 1800.
We have juries for a reason.
The Court of Appeal was set up in 1907, actually. Until that they could.
TTFN.
Can they still pardon people who've been sentenced to death?
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
Really?
Name half a dozen, and then explain why we have a judiciary at all if there is nothing questionable about the executive carrying out the judiciary's function.
I'll give one example for now: Extradition.
The Home Secretary must sign off extraditions. The courts ruled Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the USA - the Home Secretary blocked it by refusing to sign off on it.
Was the Home Secretary wrong to overrule the courts and keep Gary McKinnon in this country?
IMHO he was stunningly wrong, but he acted within his powers, which is the question I think you meant to ask.
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
I can see this name that some classy person dreamed up on this board sticking, whatever official name they come up with.
Remember, Tories were Irish cattle thieves. Whigs were Scottish sheep rustlers (I think). Labour still talk about Socialism. People like nicknames.
And compared to animal thieves and mass murderers, a fluffy toy for a five year old with a father who liked telling stories seems eminently respectable.
the wonderful thing about tiggers Is tiggers are wonderful things! Their tops are made out of rubber Their bottoms are made out of springs! They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun! But the most wonderful thing about tiggers is I'm the only one Tiggers are cuddly fellas Tiggers are awfully sweet Ev'ryone el-us is jealous That's why I repeat... and repeat The wonderful thing about tiggers Is tiggers are marvelous claps! They're loaded with vim and vigor They love to leap in your laps! They're jumpy, bumpy, clumpy, thumpy Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun! But the most wonderful thing about tiggers is I'm the only one
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
The EU as they made clear last time could not care less about a GE unless a new government backs the Deal or pivots towards EUref2 or permanent Customs Union
Have you read your post. How can the EU foretell the result of a GE and it's outcomes
As I said the EU could not care less about the result of a GE unless it led to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2 position from the new government.
For the EU it is either the Deal, EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or No Deal, no other option is available. Whoever comprises the UK government is irrelevant to the EU unless they change position on the above
Too those advocating a second referendum. Can you assure me that if for example remain win by 52:48 but 6 months later after juncker and barnier's triumphalism (which seems likely) and the polls have swung back to leave 55:45 you will be on here arguing we need a third referendum because people have changed their mind? If you do assure us of this do you think anyone will believe it especially of William Glenn
On the subject of tig.....we have had centrism since 1997 (though I personally would count major as a centrist so I would argue 1992). During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
I prefer to think the best of people.
I believe she was sincere when she wrote her original - and frankly better - article backing leave. She was right to object to some of the arguments used by the Leave campaign. Where I fail to understand her is that the arguments in her original article were quite enough to vote Leave, and you didn't need to add the Turkey or NHS strawmen.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
The EU as they made clear last time could not care less about a GE unless a new government backs the Deal or pivots towards EUref2 or permanent Customs Union
Have you read your post. How can the EU foretell the result of a GE and it's outcomes
As I said the EU could not care less about the result of a GE unless it led to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2 position from the new government.
For the EU it is either the Deal, EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or No Deal, no other option is available. Whoever comprises the UK government is irrelevant to the EU unless they change position on the above
Another classic IMHO
You cannot know what will be ruled in or out in a fast moving event like brexit but of course you are entitled tò your opinion which, by the way, I do not share
I heard the whole show. There were a couple of brutal calls but overall there was quite a lot of support for her . It’s funny before the EU ref as Labour supporter and very pro EU I couldn’t stand her as she came across quite shrill but now she’s an absolute hero for me . I never realized before she was so pro EU.
Brexit has done weird things to party allegiances . I think the cross party amendments has seen Labour and Tories working together so this has helped build up some friendships .
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
The EU as they made clear last time could not care less about a GE unless a new government backs the Deal or pivots towards EUref2 or permanent Customs Union
Have you read your post. How can the EU foretell the result of a GE and it's outcomes
It's not the votes that count - it's who counts the votes - Junker.
I heard the whole show. There were a couple of brutal calls but overall there was quite a lot of support for her . It’s funny before the EU ref as Labour supporter I couldn’t stand her as she came across quite shrill but now she’s an absolute hero for me .
When Brexits resolved one way or another you'll soon get fed up with her again.
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
I prefer to think the best of people.
I believe she was sincere when she wrote her original - and frankly better - article backing leave. She was right to object to some of the arguments used by the Leave campaign. Where I fail to understand her is that the arguments in her original article were quite enough to vote Leave, and you didn't need to add the Turkey or NHS strawmen.
Too those advocating a second referendum. Can you assure me that if for example remain win by 52:48 but 6 months later after juncker and barnier's triumphalism (which seems likely) and the polls have swung back to leave 55:45 you will be on here arguing we need a third referendum because people have changed their mind? If you do assure us of this do you think anyone will believe it especially of William Glenn
On the subject of tig.....we have had centrism since 1997 (though I personally would count major as a centrist so I would argue 1992). During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
But that's true of every major developed world economy*, whether run by centrists or not.
It's true of the US. It's true of France. It's true of Japan. It's true of the UK. It's true of Italy. It's true of Germany. It's true of Sweden.
The economic drivers objecting to the status quo are true everywhere. Demographics is no respecter of who the party in power is.
* With the exception of Canada and Australia, who have economies dominated by resource extraction during a period when the price of oil, coal, iron ore, copper, etc. rose five times.
Too those advocating a second referendum. Can you assure me that if for example remain win by 52:48 but 6 months later after juncker and barnier's triumphalism (which seems likely) and the polls have swung back to leave 55:45 you will be on here arguing we need a third referendum because people have changed their mind? If you do assure us of this do you think anyone will believe it especially of William Glenn
On the subject of tig.....we have had centrism since 1997 (though I personally would count major as a centrist so I would argue 1992). During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
I prefer to think the best of people.
I believe she was sincere when she wrote her original - and frankly better - article backing leave. She was right to object to some of the arguments used by the Leave campaign. Where I fail to understand her is that the arguments in her original article were quite enough to vote Leave, and you didn't need to add the Turkey or NHS strawmen.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
I heard the whole show. There were a couple of brutal calls but overall there was quite a lot of support for her . It’s funny before the EU ref as Labour supporter I couldn’t stand her as she came across quite shrill but now she’s an absolute hero for me .
When Brext's resolved one way or another you'll soon get fed up with her again.
Very funny ! Not sure she’ll always have a special place in my heart . All the pro EU Tories will have special dispensation come the revolution !
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
I prefer to think the best of people.
I believe she was sincere when she wrote her original - and frankly better - article backing leave. She was right to object to some of the arguments used by the Leave campaign. Where I fail to understand her is that the arguments in her original article were quite enough to vote Leave, and you didn't need to add the Turkey or NHS strawmen.
I don't believe she was sincere when she originally backed leave. Mostly because everything she said prior to that had made it clear she opposed leaving the EU.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
Really?
Name half a dozen, and then explain why we have a judiciary at all if there is nothing questionable about the executive carrying out the judiciary's function.
I'll give one example for now: Extradition.
The Home Secretary must sign off extraditions. The courts ruled Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the USA - the Home Secretary blocked it by refusing to sign off on it.
Was the Home Secretary wrong to overrule the courts and keep Gary McKinnon in this country?
IMHO he was stunningly wrong, but he acted within his powers, which is the question I think you meant to ask.
The statement posted by Ishmael is that it was wrong for the Home Secretary to have judicial powers, my point was that he/she always has had them.
I imagine there is quite an intersect between those people upset at the Home Secretary for taking actions against the IS Jihadi ex-citizen, and those who were happy that the Home Secretary blocked deportation to the USA.
Saw Jezza on ITV news this evening (he was meeting the EU and claimed that Barnier is now "agitated" about NO Deal) and I've got to say unlike the claims on here last night that he was looking old and ill I thought he looked really well?
For a man of 69 he looks good - Must be all that home grown veg.
I think he's as pleased not to be in the same party as Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna as they are not to be in the same party as him.
Too those advocating a second referendum. Can you assure me that if for example remain win by 52:48 but 6 months later after juncker and barnier's triumphalism (which seems likely) and the polls have swung back to leave 55:45 you will be on here arguing we need a third referendum because people have changed their mind? If you do assure us of this do you think anyone will believe it especially of William Glenn
I wouldn't personally, but if those who want another referendum want to push for one I wouldn't say it's illegitimate. Good luck to anyone arguing we should go through Brexit all over again though.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
Saw Jezza on ITV news this evening (he was meeting the EU and claimed that Barnier is now "agitated" about NO Deal) and I've got to say unlike the claims on here last night that he was looking old and ill I thought he looked really well?
For a man of 69 he looks good - Must be all that home grown veg.
I think he's as pleased not to be in the same party as Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna as they are not to be in the same party as him.
Last night he did look old and tired and ill.
Could be a temporary thing, touch of flu or whatever.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
Probably. Although if we expand the question to include Lord Chancellor then its probably much, much further back.
OK. Name some.
The Lord Chancellor was until Blair the head of the judiciary and until the nineteenth century he or the Home Secretary had final power of sentencing and appeal in all cases. I think they still have at least formal power over sentences.
So not over primary questions of innocence or guilt, and not since 1800.
We have juries for a reason.
The Court of Appeal was set up in 1907, actually. Until that they could.
TTFN.
No, that is dead wrong. The *Criminal* Appeal Court was set up in 1908, but there were appeal courts (and the judicial function of the HoL) for centuries before that.
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
I prefer to think the best of people.
I believe she was sincere when she wrote her original - and frankly better - article backing leave. She was right to object to some of the arguments used by the Leave campaign. Where I fail to understand her is that the arguments in her original article were quite enough to vote Leave, and you didn't need to add the Turkey or NHS strawmen.
I don't believe she was sincere when she originally backed leave. Mostly because everything she said prior to that had made it clear she opposed leaving the EU.
2013
Sarah Wollaston MP: If our relationship with the EU cannot be loosened then, with regret, I would vote to leave
During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
But that's true of every major developed world economy*, whether run by centrists or not.
It's true of the US. It's true of France. It's true of Japan. It's true of the UK. It's true of Italy. It's true of Germany. It's true of Sweden.
The economic drivers objecting to the status quo are true everywhere. Demographics is no respecter of who the party in power is.
* With the exception of Canada and Australia, who have economies dominated by resource extraction during a period when the price of oil, coal, iron ore, copper, etc. rose five times.
Point of order, It's not true of house prices. They rocketed out of reach in Britain, but not in Japan, even in places like Tokyo that had high population growth. We know how to solve this problem - repeal the planning laws - but it's a problem British voters like having.
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
I prefer to think the best of people.
I believe she was sincere when she wrote her original - and frankly better - article backing leave. She was right to object to some of the arguments used by the Leave campaign. Where I fail to understand her is that the arguments in her original article were quite enough to vote Leave, and you didn't need to add the Turkey or NHS strawmen.
I don't believe she was sincere when she originally backed leave. Mostly because everything she said prior to that had made it clear she opposed leaving the EU.
What makes me doubt her honesty is her behaviour since. She changed her mind, during the campaign. Fair enough, people can change their minds. Then, she told her party that she accepted the outcome. She voted for A50 and promised her voters she would support Brexit. No sooner was she re-elected, and she changed her mind back to opposing Brexit. That's the behaviour of a serial liar.
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
Wollaston is a snake. Nobody assumes she honestly favoured Leave.
I prefer to think the best of people.
I believe she was sincere when she wrote her original - and frankly better - article backing leave. She was right to object to some of the arguments used by the Leave campaign. Where I fail to understand her is that the arguments in her original article were quite enough to vote Leave, and you didn't need to add the Turkey or NHS strawmen.
I don't believe she was sincere when she originally backed leave. Mostly because everything she said prior to that had made it clear she opposed leaving the EU.
2013
Sarah Wollaston MP: If our relationship with the EU cannot be loosened then, with regret, I would vote to leave
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
Too those advocating a second referendum. Can you assure me that if for example remain win by 52:48 but 6 months later after juncker and barnier's triumphalism (which seems likely) and the polls have swung back to leave 55:45 you will be on here arguing we need a third referendum because people have changed their mind? If you do assure us of this do you think anyone will believe it especially of William Glenn
On the subject of tig.....we have had centrism since 1997 (though I personally would count major as a centrist so I would argue 1992). During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
Welcome to PB. There is much truth in what you say. @rcs points out some caveats to this. However, ironically, there is a longstanding Party which once was committed to the interests of the ABC1s. They are now the Party of a seemingly blind faith in a reckless gamble with economic stability. And being unkind to foreigners. Meanwhile the traditional Party of the lower classes is engaged in a different kind of gamble with economic stability. And being unkind to anyone who doesn't share their faith. Given all that, there is a large market for the Centrists.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
We were told, quite explicitly, that our decision would be final and there would be no trickery once the result was in.
The 52% would be completely correct in feeling lied to, cheated and utterly disillusioned with the democractic process.
Cameron wasn't on my side in the referendum. He was trying to blackmail people into voting for permanent semi-detachment from the EU.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
Really?
Name half a dozen, and then explain why we have a judiciary at all if there is nothing questionable about the executive carrying out the judiciary's function.
I'll give one example for now: Extradition.
The Home Secretary must sign off extraditions. The courts ruled Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the USA - the Home Secretary blocked it by refusing to sign off on it.
Was the Home Secretary wrong to overrule the courts and keep Gary McKinnon in this country?
IMHO he was stunningly wrong, but he acted within his powers, which is the question I think you meant to ask.
The statement posted by Ishmael is that it was wrong for the Home Secretary to have judicial powers, my point was that he/she always has had them.
I imagine there is quite an intersect between those people upset at the Home Secretary for taking actions against the IS Jihadi ex-citizen, and those who were happy that the Home Secretary blocked deportation to the USA.
Indeed. I find myself in an odd position: I wanted her let in so she could be tried and imprisoned, and I wanted McKinnon deported so that he could be tried and imprisoned. In both cases I thought there was a prima-facie case with a good chance of conviction and that the arguments proferred by their advocates were emotive.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Pants have clearly been shat in the Labour Party. They considered that: (a) Labour voters would vote for Corbyn because the alternative is the Tories, and (b) Shouting and Hectoring anyone who disagrees would shut them down because the alternative is the Tories
Except that the TIGers have fucked that delusion. They had convinced themselves that because Corbyn is Good and Corbyn is Right that anyone disagreeing could be bullied into submission. That Righteousness would deliver the Win because He is flawless.
Now they see reality. To win they need all the voters to their right, the ones they have slagged off endlessly who would have to vote Labour anyway because Tories. Whenever they failed to vote Labour anyway there was always an excuse - the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the PLP, the people too stupid to see. But now its utterly clear that the centre does exist, that Jezbollah leads Labour further away from these voters at a rate of knows whilst simultaneously giving the finger to their 2017 voters who see him shitting on their future with his tacit support for Hard Brexit.
So the likes of Owen Jones are shatting themselves because they can finally see that the jig is up. There won't be a general election - because TIGers won't vote for it. There won't be a Labour majority of 704 because no GE and the voters find him a major turn off. There won't be a successful "you HAVE to vote for us" campaign because no, they don't.
Corbyn will not be the Labour Party leader at the next general election.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Pants have clearly been shat in the Labour Party. They considered that: (a) Labour voters would vote for Corbyn because the alternative is the Tories, and (b) Shouting and Hectoring anyone who disagrees would shut them down because the alternative is the Tories
Except that the TIGers have fucked that delusion. They had convinced themselves that because Corbyn is Good and Corbyn is Right that anyone disagreeing could be bullied into submission. That Righteousness would deliver the Win because He is flawless.
Now they see reality. To win they need all the voters to their right, the ones they have slagged off endlessly who would have to vote Labour anyway because Tories. Whenever they failed to vote Labour anyway there was always an excuse - the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the PLP, the people too stupid to see. But now its utterly clear that the centre does exist, that Jezbollah leads Labour further away from these voters at a rate of knows whilst simultaneously giving the finger to their 2017 voters who see him shitting on their future with his tacit support for Hard Brexit.
So the likes of Owen Jones are shatting themselves because they can finally see that the jig is up. There won't be a general election - because TIGers won't vote for it. There won't be a Labour majority of 704 because no GE and the voters find him a major turn off. There won't be a successful "you HAVE to vote for us" campaign because no, they don't.
Corbyn will not be the Labour Party leader at the next general election.
Pants have clearly been shat in the Labour Party. They considered that: (a) Labour voters would vote for Corbyn because the alternative is the Tories, and (b) Shouting and Hectoring anyone who disagrees would shut them down because the alternative is the Tories
Except that the TIGers have fucked that delusion. They had convinced themselves that because Corbyn is Good and Corbyn is Right that anyone disagreeing could be bullied into submission. That Righteousness would deliver the Win because He is flawless.
Now they see reality. To win they need all the voters to their right, the ones they have slagged off endlessly who would have to vote Labour anyway because Tories. Whenever they failed to vote Labour anyway there was always an excuse - the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the PLP, the people too stupid to see. But now its utterly clear that the centre does exist, that Jezbollah leads Labour further away from these voters at a rate of knows whilst simultaneously giving the finger to their 2017 voters who see him shitting on their future with his tacit support for Hard Brexit.
So the likes of Owen Jones are shatting themselves because they can finally see that the jig is up. There won't be a general election - because TIGers won't vote for it. There won't be a Labour majority of 704 because no GE and the voters find him a major turn off. There won't be a successful "you HAVE to vote for us" campaign because no, they don't.
Corbyn will not be the Labour Party leader at the next general election.
If Corbyn is Labour leader next GE can you see yourself voting for the Tiggers (even if that includes people like Soubry) - or are you Labour for life?
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Sure, we can pretend this was just a bit of a joke, but those pesky voters might disagree.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
Really?
Name half a dozen, and then explain why we have a judiciary at all if there is nothing questionable about the executive carrying out the judiciary's function.
I'll give one example for now: Extradition.
The Home Secretary must sign off extraditions. The courts ruled Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the USA - the Home Secretary blocked it by refusing to sign off on it.
Was the Home Secretary wrong to overrule the courts and keep Gary McKinnon in this country?
IMHO he was stunningly wrong, but he acted within his powers, which is the question I think you meant to ask.
The statement posted by Ishmael is that it was wrong for the Home Secretary to have judicial powers, my point was that he/she always has had them.
I imagine there is quite an intersect between those people upset at the Home Secretary for taking actions against the IS Jihadi ex-citizen, and those who were happy that the Home Secretary blocked deportation to the USA.
In cases od deportation the Home Csecretary is required by dstatute to make a decision on the basis of matters which have been investigated and determined by the Courts. That is as fas as it is possible to get from the Home Secretary depriving a citizen of citizenship off his own bat and without the facts and law having been debated with a chance for the citizen to have her case put by her lawyers. That strikes me as very dangerous (in priciple; I am not losing sleep over the plight of Begum in paricular).
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Sure, we can pretend this was just a bit of a joke, but those pesky voters might disagree.
Why do you think "advisory" is synonymous with "a bit of a joke?" It isn't.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
Yes that's the only way. Which says to the EU "give us a shit deal and we will revoke".
We've already got the deal and it hasn't been reopened. If the goal is to face down MPs, just do it from the other direction: "Either vote for this deal, or take the responsibility for being seen to go against the 2016 decision."
In cases od deportation the Home Csecretary is required by dstatute to make a decision on the basis of matters which have been investigated and determined by the Courts. That is as fas as it is possible to get from the Home Secretary depriving a citizen of citizenship off his own bat and without the facts and law having been debated with a chance for the citizen to have her case put by her lawyers. That strikes me as very dangerous (in priciple; I am not losing sleep over the plight of Begum in paricular).
Mrs Begum has the right to lawyers putting her case before the courts. She just can't travel back until the courts have either approved or reversed the Home Secretary's decision.
In that way its more comparable to an injunction. The final decision still rests with the courts.
In the case of Gary McKinnon the Home Secretary reversed the courts final decision. In this case that's not possible, if the courts rule she's still a citizen then she is still a citizen.
Pants have clearly been shat in the Labour Party. They considered that: (a) Labour voters would vote for Corbyn because the alternative is the Tories, and (b) Shouting and Hectoring anyone who disagrees would shut them down because the alternative is the Tories
Except that the TIGers have fucked that delusion. They had convinced themselves that because Corbyn is Good and Corbyn is Right that anyone disagreeing could be bullied into submission. That Righteousness would deliver the Win because He is flawless.
Now they see reality. To win they need all the voters to their right, the ones they have slagged off endlessly who would have to vote Labour anyway because Tories. Whenever they failed to vote Labour anyway there was always an excuse - the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the PLP, the people too stupid to see. But now its utterly clear that the centre does exist, that Jezbollah leads Labour further away from these voters at a rate of knows whilst simultaneously giving the finger to their 2017 voters who see him shitting on their future with his tacit support for Hard Brexit.
So the likes of Owen Jones are shatting themselves because they can finally see that the jig is up. There won't be a general election - because TIGers won't vote for it. There won't be a Labour majority of 704 because no GE and the voters find him a major turn off. There won't be a successful "you HAVE to vote for us" campaign because no, they don't.
Corbyn will not be the Labour Party leader at the next general election.
If Corbyn is Labour leader next GE can you see yourself voting for the Tiggers (even if that includes people like Soubry) - or are you Labour for life?
What do TIG stand for? I know what they are against, but what are they for?
I remain convinced that Corbyn is a passing madness, we've had this kind of thing before and got over it - as have the Tories. And they are also sliding into their own pit of extremist madness
Pants have clearly been shat in the Labour Party. They considered that: (a) Labour voters would vote for Corbyn because the alternative is the Tories, and (b) Shouting and Hectoring anyone who disagrees would shut them down because the alternative is the Tories
Except that the TIGers have fucked that delusion. They had convinced themselves that because Corbyn is Good and Corbyn is Right that anyone disagreeing could be bullied into submission. That Righteousness would deliver the Win because He is flawless.
Now they see reality. To win they need all the voters to their right, the ones they have slagged off endlessly who would have to vote Labour anyway because Tories. Whenever they failed to vote Labour anyway there was always an excuse - the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the PLP, the people too stupid to see. But now its utterly clear that the centre does exist, that Jezbollah leads Labour further away from these voters at a rate of knows whilst simultaneously giving the finger to their 2017 voters who see him shitting on their future with his tacit support for Hard Brexit.
So the likes of Owen Jones are shatting themselves because they can finally see that the jig is up. There won't be a general election - because TIGers won't vote for it. There won't be a Labour majority of 704 because no GE and the voters find him a major turn off. There won't be a successful "you HAVE to vote for us" campaign because no, they don't.
Corbyn will not be the Labour Party leader at the next general election.
Momm. I wonder how much of that applies to the government too. There has been a surfeit of Tory wets on the Downing Street catwalk today. TIG puts Corbyn in no 10 any time soon much further out of reach. And fear of Corbyn is a huge driver of Tory support. We will see.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Well all three of the Tory MPs who have defected now claiming we should reverse Brexit said in their own election literature that the decision had to be respected and should not be reversed.
And of course the official campaign literature provided to every single household by the Government urging people to vote Remain said:
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide"
Entirely sensible to have 1 combined service on Sunday mornings in sparsely populated rural areas rather than separate services at the same time in each Church in the area
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
I think you have a good insight into the mentality of the ERG types .The Davies "It's not worth the paper it's written on" gambit will be the ERG rationalisation for supporting the Deal. May still needs a decent chunk of Labour MPs to vote for the deal or abstain, so she doesn't have to worry about the DUP to get it over the line.
Pants have clearly been shat in the Labour Party. They considered that: (a) Labour voters would vote for Corbyn because the alternative is the Tories, and (b) Shouting and Hectoring anyone who disagrees would shut them down because the alternative is the Tories
Except that the TIGers have fucked that delusion. They had convinced themselves that because Corbyn is Good and Corbyn is Right that anyone disagreeing could be bullied into submission. That Righteousness would deliver the Win because He is flawless.
Now they see reality. To win they need all the voters to their right, the ones they have slagged off endlessly who would have to vote Labour anyway because Tories. Whenever they failed to vote Labour anyway there was always an excuse - the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the PLP, the people too stupid to see. But now its utterly clear that the centre does exist, that Jezbollah leads Labour further away from these voters at a rate of knows whilst simultaneously giving the finger to their 2017 voters who see him shitting on their future with his tacit support for Hard Brexit.
So the likes of Owen Jones are shatting themselves because they can finally see that the jig is up. There won't be a general election - because TIGers won't vote for it. There won't be a Labour majority of 704 because no GE and the voters find him a major turn off. There won't be a successful "you HAVE to vote for us" campaign because no, they don't.
Corbyn will not be the Labour Party leader at the next general election.
If Corbyn is Labour leader next GE can you see yourself voting for the Tiggers (even if that includes people like Soubry) - or are you Labour for life?
What do TIG stand for? I know what they are against, but what are they for?
I remain convinced that Corbyn is a passing madness, we've had this kind of thing before and got over it - as have the Tories. And they are also sliding into their own pit of extremist madness
TIG stands for Chuka becoming Prime Minister before 2040?
Too those advocating a second referendum. Can you assure me that if for example remain win by 52:48 but 6 months later after juncker and barnier's triumphalism (which seems likely) and the polls have swung back to leave 55:45 you will be on here arguing we need a third referendum because people have changed their mind?
(Welcome to PB!)
Nope. I can't assure you that at all because I don't believe it.
I advocate a second referendum only because I think Leave will be disastrous and, like any disastrous policy, I look for the most efficacious way of overturning it. I don't particularly like the idea of a second referendum, but I can't see a better way of overturning the Leave vote.
There are many on here who think that the result of the advisory referendum is sacrosanct. They're welcome to that view, but I don't share it. As a good BCP Anglican I believe in being "godly and quietly governed" and I don't see that wilfully impoverishing the country counts as that. (Fairly obviously, I also wouldn't support reinstating the death penalty if a referendum voted for it.)
But if a second (third) referendum votes to remain, and you want to campaign for a third (fourth) referendum, knock yourself out. I won't be marching with you but nor will I be posting that you mustn't hold those views. You always have the right to fight for what you believe in.
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
I think you have a good insight into the mentality of the ERG types .The Davies "It's not worth the paper it's written on" gambit will be the ERG rationalisation for supporting the Deal. May still needs a decent chunk of Labour MPs to vote for the deal or abstain, so she doesn't have to worry about the DUP to get it over the line.
The problem is that if the DUP are still opposed, the ERG will be afraid of looking weak if they vote for it. Capitulation only works if it has the blessing of the most intransigent.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
I don't doubt your intellectual integrity for one second, but if Remain had won 51:49, Cameron had stood down by now to be replaced by (say) Gove, who immediately announced that he was invoking Article 50 on the basis that the referendum was advisory... well, what do you think would've happened next?
A clue: it is not all Remainers accepting this without question. They didn't do that even after they lost the vote.
Someone "famous" must have just mentioned this petition on social media, because the number signing "in the last hour" has jumped from about 500 earlier today to almost 8,000.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
Under FTPA could a VONC and new government, followed by revocation of A50 all be sorted out before 29th March?
Comments
Indeed in some of the more qualitative research done on EU attitudes it was aspects of feeling European and being part of something bigger that would be most missed by especially younger people.
I think also younger people to a degree view the world differently from older people , they’ve been brought up with open borders , immigration huge traveling opportunities and huge amounts of social media .
The Home Secretary must sign off extraditions. The courts ruled Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the USA - the Home Secretary blocked it by refusing to sign off on it.
Was the Home Secretary wrong to overrule the courts and keep Gary McKinnon in this country?
We have juries for a reason.
For a man of 69 he looks good - Must be all that home grown veg.
But in 1794 these offices were held by Dundas (Melville) who was an SoS and along with Grenville one of the most senior men in Pitt's government.
Have a good evening.
TTFN.
Still 4:1 remainers to leavers though ...
Edit: also, who pardoned Alan Turing?
I have to ask. Are you actually a seal?
Is tiggers are wonderful things!
Their tops are made out of rubber
Their bottoms are made out of springs!
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!
But the most wonderful thing about tiggers is
I'm the only one
Tiggers are cuddly fellas
Tiggers are awfully sweet
Ev'ryone el-us is jealous
That's why I repeat... and repeat
The wonderful thing about tiggers
Is tiggers are marvelous claps!
They're loaded with vim and vigor
They love to leap in your laps!
They're jumpy, bumpy, clumpy, thumpy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!
But the most wonderful thing about tiggers is
I'm the only one
or not the only one!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Bmh4e86qE
For the EU it is either the Deal, EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or No Deal, no other option is available. Whoever comprises the UK government is irrelevant to the EU unless they change position on the above
On the subject of tig.....we have had centrism since 1997 (though I personally would count major as a centrist so I would argue 1992). During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
I believe she was sincere when she wrote her original - and frankly better - article backing leave. She was right to object to some of the arguments used by the Leave campaign. Where I fail to understand her is that the arguments in her original article were quite enough to vote Leave, and you didn't need to add the Turkey or NHS strawmen.
You cannot know what will be ruled in or out in a fast moving event like brexit but of course you are entitled tò your opinion which, by the way, I do not share
Brexit has done weird things to party allegiances . I think the cross party amendments has seen Labour and Tories working together so this has helped build up some friendships .
And this helped the trios move to the Indy group.
When Brexits resolved one way or another you'll soon get fed up with her again.
It's true of the US. It's true of France. It's true of Japan. It's true of the UK. It's true of Italy. It's true of Germany. It's true of Sweden.
The economic drivers objecting to the status quo are true everywhere. Demographics is no respecter of who the party in power is.
* With the exception of Canada and Australia, who have economies dominated by resource extraction during a period when the price of oil, coal, iron ore, copper, etc. rose five times.
Great first post, could not agree more.
I imagine there is quite an intersect between those people upset at the Home Secretary for taking actions against the IS Jihadi ex-citizen, and those who were happy that the Home Secretary blocked deportation to the USA.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/queensland-drivers-set-to-get-emoji-number-plates/news-story/ec0fc157acd77a2ac8d79621a1d16b06
Could be a temporary thing, touch of flu or whatever.
Sarah Wollaston MP: If our relationship with the EU cannot be loosened then, with regret, I would vote to leave
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/01/from-drwollastonmp-if-our-relationship-with-the-eu-cannot-be-loosened-then-with-regret-i-would-vote-.html
A gift from my parents when I passed my test.
Pull the other one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRowLjb0x48
We were told, quite explicitly, that our decision would be final and there would be no trickery once the result was in.
The 52% would be completely correct in feeling lied to, cheated and utterly disillusioned with the democractic process.
Meanwhile the traditional Party of the lower classes is engaged in a different kind of gamble with economic stability. And being unkind to anyone who doesn't share their faith.
Given all that, there is a large market for the Centrists.
They will also feel lied to in the event of No Deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/21/brexit-latest-news-labour-tories-brace-walkouts-defectors-reshape/
(a) Labour voters would vote for Corbyn because the alternative is the Tories, and
(b) Shouting and Hectoring anyone who disagrees would shut them down because the alternative is the Tories
Except that the TIGers have fucked that delusion. They had convinced themselves that because Corbyn is Good and Corbyn is Right that anyone disagreeing could be bullied into submission. That Righteousness would deliver the Win because He is flawless.
Now they see reality. To win they need all the voters to their right, the ones they have slagged off endlessly who would have to vote Labour anyway because Tories. Whenever they failed to vote Labour anyway there was always an excuse - the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the PLP, the people too stupid to see. But now its utterly clear that the centre does exist, that Jezbollah leads Labour further away from these voters at a rate of knows whilst simultaneously giving the finger to their 2017 voters who see him shitting on their future with his tacit support for Hard Brexit.
So the likes of Owen Jones are shatting themselves because they can finally see that the jig is up. There won't be a general election - because TIGers won't vote for it. There won't be a Labour majority of 704 because no GE and the voters find him a major turn off. There won't be a successful "you HAVE to vote for us" campaign because no, they don't.
Corbyn will not be the Labour Party leader at the next general election.
What odds on TIGs being above labour !!!!!
Within a year or so maybe. Not yet though.
An extension, not taking no deal off the table, not a deal versus remain referendum. Simply kicking the can.
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
In that way its more comparable to an injunction. The final decision still rests with the courts.
In the case of Gary McKinnon the Home Secretary reversed the courts final decision. In this case that's not possible, if the courts rule she's still a citizen then she is still a citizen.
I remain convinced that Corbyn is a passing madness, we've had this kind of thing before and got over it - as have the Tories. And they are also sliding into their own pit of extremist madness
We will see.
And of course the official campaign literature provided to every single household by the Government urging people to vote Remain said:
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide"
Does anything else matter?
Nope. I can't assure you that at all because I don't believe it.
I advocate a second referendum only because I think Leave will be disastrous and, like any disastrous policy, I look for the most efficacious way of overturning it. I don't particularly like the idea of a second referendum, but I can't see a better way of overturning the Leave vote.
There are many on here who think that the result of the advisory referendum is sacrosanct. They're welcome to that view, but I don't share it. As a good BCP Anglican I believe in being "godly and quietly governed" and I don't see that wilfully impoverishing the country counts as that. (Fairly obviously, I also wouldn't support reinstating the death penalty if a referendum voted for it.)
But if a second (third) referendum votes to remain, and you want to campaign for a third (fourth) referendum, knock yourself out. I won't be marching with you but nor will I be posting that you mustn't hold those views. You always have the right to fight for what you believe in.
A clue: it is not all Remainers accepting this without question. They didn't do that even after they lost the vote.
https://petition.parliament.uk
Just 36 (nearly 35) days to go now...