Excellent thread (as usual) - and we have no shortage of crises going around.
On Cardinal Pell I have been reading in the Australian press some disquiet over his conviction - based on the sole testimony on one complainant (the other allegedly having denied the allegation before his death) and no other evidence of grooming or other assaults, which would tend to be unusual in these types of cases.
If the leader comes to understand the scale of the problem sufficiently to consider that they might need to leave, are they not then finally able to lead the action needed to fix the issue - and if they go there's no guarantee that their successor will have the same understanding.
If Theresa May comes to that conclusion then we are basically in that situation. She'd know there's a good chance that someone anointed by the ERG would take over and that would make the situation far worse.
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
Mr. Me, the opposite of that might be called the Numa Conundrum (he was made king of Rome after Romulus, without his knowledge or consent as he was living elsewhere at the time).
We should also have the Julian Surprise, after Julian the Apostate who got made Caesar (junior emperor) largely on the basis he was the only living male relative of the emperor.
WRT scandals, I remember how I and fellow schoolboys took it for granted in the eighties that there were some "dodgy" teachers, with very wandering hands.
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
It's a rubbish route. Not only is it not continuous they've just let Google choose the route and missed out good publicity opportunities.
So, for example, the Aylesbury to Beaconsfield leg on 28th March looks like it just goes straight down the A413, so they will pass within a couple of miles of Chequers when they could with little additional difficulty walk past the official country residence of the Prime Minister.
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
Some of the times look a bit err... optimistic to me, also I'd love to know exactly where they're walking on the A60 between Tickhill and Oldcotes. It's a quick route; there's no pavement and the field I assume is trespass (And likely very tough going to walk through)
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
I was wondering about that. I know some of these areas, and have walked in them. Some of the routes seem a little odd - e.g. Corby to Wellingborough. From the low-detail maps, it doesn't seem a 'natural' route. Perhaps they've had other restrictions, e.g. after police and council input.
It doesn't appear they've just gone into Google Maps and entered the 'walk' tab.
If they need someone to design 'proper' routes, I'm available for a fee.
I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.
He knows that it's not just going to be a three month extension.
Hypothetical question: If the EU agree a three month extension to 30th June, could they also insist that we proceed with the EU elections, in order to cover the situation whereby we extend again or revoke A50?
The new EU Parliament sits on 2nd July, and if the UK is still a member on that date it would not be correctly constituted without our MEPs.
I think the problem they then have is that if we leave after that date, the distribution of seats amongst the remaining 27 is kind of broken. I am not sure exactly how much of an issue that is - but for example the election of a new president of the Parliament would be interesting if it included the votes of MEPs who then shortly afterwards left their seats.
I can se why the EU would be very keen to avoid such a situation.
My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections, then it's a big problem for the EU.
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
I was wondering about that. I know some of these areas, and have walked in them. Some of the routes seem a little odd - e.g. Corby to Wellingborough. From the low-detail maps, it doesn't seem a 'natural' route. Perhaps they've had other restrictions, e.g. after police and council input.
It doesn't appear they've just gone into Google Maps and entered the 'walk' tab.
If they need someone to design 'proper' routes, I'm available for a fee.
I think they might be a smidgen suspicious as to where they might end up.
I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.
He knows that it's not just going to be a three month extension.
Hypothetical question: If the EU agree a three month extension to 30th June, could they also insist that we proceed with the EU elections, in order to cover the situation whereby we extend again or revoke A50?
The new EU Parliament sits on 2nd July, and if the UK is still a member on that date it would not be correctly constituted without our MEPs.
I think the problem they then have is that if we leave after that date, the distribution of seats amongst the remaining 27 is kind of broken. I am not sure exactly how much of an issue that is - but for example the election of a new president of the Parliament would be interesting if it included the votes of MEPs who then shortly afterwards left their seats.
I can se why the EU would be very keen to avoid such a situation.
My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections, then it's a big problem for the EU.
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
It's D'Hondt in Britain, but STV in Ireland, I think. Maybe different in other places. I think electoral law in various countries specifies how many MEPs are elected. I don't think it can easily be modified after the event.
Just as with Northern Ireland this has the potential to be a much bigger issue down the road that we'd wish people had dealt with earlier.
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
I was wondering about that. I know some of these areas, and have walked in them. Some of the routes seem a little odd - e.g. Corby to Wellingborough. From the low-detail maps, it doesn't seem a 'natural' route. Perhaps they've had other restrictions, e.g. after police and council input.
It doesn't appear they've just gone into Google Maps and entered the 'walk' tab.
If they need someone to design 'proper' routes, I'm available for a fee.
I was thinking that the reasons for e.g. Corby to Wellingborough was that the former is a Lab/Con marginal that voted Leave, and the latter is Peter Bone's constituency.
The selected towns are probably those with activists from Leave Means Leave.
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
I was wondering about that. I know some of these areas, and have walked in them. Some of the routes seem a little odd - e.g. Corby to Wellingborough. From the low-detail maps, it doesn't seem a 'natural' route. Perhaps they've had other restrictions, e.g. after police and council input.
It doesn't appear they've just gone into Google Maps and entered the 'walk' tab.
If they need someone to design 'proper' routes, I'm available for a fee.
I think they might be a smidgen suspicious as to where they might end up.
The more they paid me, the better the instructions, and the better the finish point.
In all seriousness, there must be a lot of work in organising this sort of thing. Not just in planning a route, but I assume in negotiating with councils, police and other authorities. And in keeping people safe and fit.
A decade or so ago I planned a route across Britain for a woman's charity walk. It took ages, and getting council permissions for charity collections was really hard for her. Street collection licences are a massive difficulty (on my walk I just didn't bother - nobody complained).
In a now-deleted opinion piece, Anna Maria Tuckett, an EU migrant and carer for her disabled son, wrote that she had been advised she was ‘unlikely to qualify for citizenship’ after Brexit and therefore could be deported and separated from her son. The piece also seemed to suggest that she could be denied settled status because she is a home-based carer.
If this were true, it would, of course, be a travesty. I could understand why the Guardian would run it. A faceless Home Office official taking an immigrant mother and carer from her son because of the evils of Brexit. It’s liberal clickbait.
I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.
He knows that it's not just going to be a three month extension.
Hypothetical question: If the EU agree a three month extension to 30th June, could they also insist that we proceed with the EU elections, in order to cover the situation whereby we extend again or revoke A50?
The new EU Parliament sits on 2nd July, and if the UK is still a member on that date it would not be correctly constituted without our MEPs.
I think the problem they then have is that if we leave after that date, the distribution of seats amongst the remaining 27 is kind of broken. I am not sure exactly how much of an issue that is - but for example the election of a new president of the Parliament would be interesting if it included the votes of MEPs who then shortly afterwards left their seats.
I can se why the EU would be very keen to avoid such a situation.
My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections, then it's a big problem for the EU.
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
Not all countries do use closed lists: Ireland uses STV, for example. That said, I don't think there's anywhere where it wouldn't be possible to identify which the 'extra' MEPs are.
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
I was wondering about that. I know some of these areas, and have walked in them. Some of the routes seem a little odd - e.g. Corby to Wellingborough. From the low-detail maps, it doesn't seem a 'natural' route. Perhaps they've had other restrictions, e.g. after police and council input.
It doesn't appear they've just gone into Google Maps and entered the 'walk' tab.
If they need someone to design 'proper' routes, I'm available for a fee.
I was thinking that the reasons for e.g. Corby to Wellingborough was that the former is a Lab/Con marginal that voted Leave, and the latter is Peter Bone's constituency.
The selected towns are probably those with activists from Leave Means Leave.
I've no problem with the start ad end points: just the routes between them. For instance, as far as I can tell from these maps, the route goes between the two by an 'interesting' route, and missing Kettering by a couple of miles. It'd be easy enough to go through that town as well (which I think was also heavily leave).
I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.
He knows that it's not just going to be a three month extension.
Hypothetical question: If the EU agree a three month extension to 30th June, could they also insist that we proceed with the EU elections, in order to cover the situation whereby we extend again or revoke A50?
The new EU Parliament sits on 2nd July, and if the UK is still a member on that date it would not be correctly constituted without our MEPs.
I think the problem they then have is that if we leave after that date, the distribution of seats amongst the remaining 27 is kind of broken. I am not sure exactly how much of an issue that is - but for example the election of a new president of the Parliament would be interesting if it included the votes of MEPs who then shortly afterwards left their seats.
I can se why the EU would be very keen to avoid such a situation.
My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections, then it's a big problem for the EU.
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
It's D'Hondt in Britain, but STV in Ireland, I think. Maybe different in other places. I think electoral law in various countries specifies how many MEPs are elected. I don't think it can easily be modified after the event.
Just as with Northern Ireland this has the potential to be a much bigger issue down the road that we'd wish people had dealt with earlier.
Oh crap. Really, different countries elect MEPs with different voting systems?
In that case any 3-month extension is going to have to be totally and utterly final, and purely for the purposes of straightening the paperwork on an already agreed deal - meaning in the UK that *all* the required legislation - not just one 'meaningful' vote in the Commons - to have already passed by 29th March.
Edit: @david_herdson below thinks it would be possible to sort out afterwards.
In a now-deleted opinion piece, Anna Maria Tuckett, an EU migrant and carer for her disabled son, wrote that she had been advised she was ‘unlikely to qualify for citizenship’ after Brexit and therefore could be deported and separated from her son. The piece also seemed to suggest that she could be denied settled status because she is a home-based carer.
If this were true, it would, of course, be a travesty. I could understand why the Guardian would run it. A faceless Home Office official taking an immigrant mother and carer from her son because of the evils of Brexit. It’s liberal clickbait.
@JosiasJessop Take a look at the Tickhill - Oldcotes section, will they be going at the side of the field or on the verge next to the main road ?
TBF, I've walked much worse than that. Then again, I'm a nutter and I'm walking alone, not in a big group.
I'm also rather against 'marches' across the country where the start of a day does not end at the previous day's endpoint. If you'e going to skip bits, why not just skip the entire thing?
In a now-deleted opinion piece, Anna Maria Tuckett, an EU migrant and carer for her disabled son, wrote that she had been advised she was ‘unlikely to qualify for citizenship’ after Brexit and therefore could be deported and separated from her son. The piece also seemed to suggest that she could be denied settled status because she is a home-based carer.
If this were true, it would, of course, be a travesty. I could understand why the Guardian would run it. A faceless Home Office official taking an immigrant mother and carer from her son because of the evils of Brexit. It’s liberal clickbait.
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
I was wondering about that. I know some of these areas, and have walked in them. Some of the routes seem a little odd - e.g. Corby to Wellingborough. From the low-detail maps, it doesn't seem a 'natural' route. Perhaps they've had other restrictions, e.g. after police and council input.
It doesn't appear they've just gone into Google Maps and entered the 'walk' tab.
If they need someone to design 'proper' routes, I'm available for a fee.
I was thinking that the reasons for e.g. Corby to Wellingborough was that the former is a Lab/Con marginal that voted Leave, and the latter is Peter Bone's constituency.
The selected towns are probably those with activists from Leave Means Leave.
I've no problem with the start ad end points: just the routes between them. For instance, as far as I can tell from these maps, the route goes between the two by an 'interesting' route, and missing Kettering by a couple of miles. It'd be easy enough to go through that town as well (which I think was also heavily leave).
Ah okay. TBH it looks like they just typed names of towns into Google Maps and asked for the shortest route walking, rather than made any attempt to actually plan a proper route.
I assume that they will actually have to have permission from police and councils, who may alter the route somewhat to take account of traffic patterns and pubic disruption etc.
It's been a couple of decades since I was involved in organising a long walk, (which was for a charitable rather than political purpose). On a couple of very rural but unavoidable stretches we had a couple of well-illuminated support vehicles causing havoc by driving at walking pace on A-roads to shield half a dozen walkers from the traffic.
If the leader comes to understand the scale of the problem sufficiently to consider that they might need to leave, are they not then finally able to lead the action needed to fix the issue - and if they go there's no guarantee that their successor will have the same understanding.
No - because, in my experience, having presided over the problem becoming very much worse, they find it hard to cast the necessary critical eye over their own previous decisions which will likely have contributed to the problem or to make the necessary staff changes. And there is also a credibility problem with the rest of the staff. if you presided over the mess, how can the staff trust you to put it right? Trust in senior management is absolutely key to achieving effective change.
There can also be the issue that they have been pushed into accepting there is a problem. That makes it hard for them to push back against the inevitable inertia etc.
What is needed is a change of tone, of mood from the top which inspires and motivates others to do the necessary. Very hard to get that when people look at a leader and say " Well, you were the one who didn't support me when I first raised this problem x years ago."
Not impossible but rare. If I look at organisations in trouble now, in my professional opinion, a change of leadership is needed. The longer it is postponed, the harder eventual recovery will be.
My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections, then it's a big problem for the EU.
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
It's D'Hondt in Britain, but STV in Ireland, I think. Maybe different in other places. I think electoral law in various countries specifies how many MEPs are elected. I don't think it can easily be modified after the event.
Just as with Northern Ireland this has the potential to be a much bigger issue down the road that we'd wish people had dealt with earlier.
Oh crap. Really, different countries elect MEPs with different voting systems?
In that case any 3-month extension is going to have to be totally and utterly final, and purely for the purposes of straightening the paperwork on an already agreed deal - meaning in the UK that *all* the required legislation - not just one 'meaningful' vote in the Commons - to have already passed by 29th March.
Edit: @david_herdson below thinks it would be possible to sort out afterwards.
Well, suppose we have a short extension, didn't elect MEPs because we didn't plan on staying any longer, but still can't sort everything out and end up revoking Article 50 at the last moment in a panic. It would create an almighty mess, but some way of sorting out the details would have to be found.
The thing is that the potential for this mess affects the choices that people make now.
On one view the person responsible for the current mess was Cameron who did the right thing and resigned resulting in the change of leadership Cyclefree is talking about. The problem is that his replacement has been utterly inept and failed to deal effectively with the crisis he left behind, aggravating it in multiple ways.
So do we now need a replacement for the replacement? I think so but the timing is tricky. I would certainly want a replacement before we start any further negotiations about more important matters than the WA with the EU. The ideal, in my opinion, is for May to get the WA through Parliament and then step down before the transition talks begin. I am just not sure how this is possible. The risk is that getting the WA through, if she does, will be regarded as giving her a boost and increasing the risk of this happening again.
In a now-deleted opinion piece, Anna Maria Tuckett, an EU migrant and carer for her disabled son, wrote that she had been advised she was ‘unlikely to qualify for citizenship’ after Brexit and therefore could be deported and separated from her son. The piece also seemed to suggest that she could be denied settled status because she is a home-based carer.
If this were true, it would, of course, be a travesty. I could understand why the Guardian would run it. A faceless Home Office official taking an immigrant mother and carer from her son because of the evils of Brexit. It’s liberal clickbait.
Do we think this was just one article or a whole frippery of fakeness flung our way by said journal?
Like the Daily Mail has a "blind spot" when it comes to checking / stating all the details of migrant doing bad things, the Guardian has a similar blind spot when it comes to checking / stating all the details of migrants being deported.
My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections, then it's a big problem for the EU.
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
It's D'Hondt in Britain, but STV in Ireland, I think. Maybe different in other places. I think electoral law in various countries specifies how many MEPs are elected. I don't think it can easily be modified after the event.
Just as with Northern Ireland this has the potential to be a much bigger issue down the road that we'd wish people had dealt with earlier.
Oh crap. Really, different countries elect MEPs with different voting systems?
In that case any 3-month extension is going to have to be totally and utterly final, and purely for the purposes of straightening the paperwork on an already agreed deal - meaning in the UK that *all* the required legislation - not just one 'meaningful' vote in the Commons - to have already passed by 29th March.
Edit: @david_herdson below thinks it would be possible to sort out afterwards.
Well, suppose we have a short extension, didn't elect MEPs because we didn't plan on staying any longer, but still can't sort everything out and end up revoking Article 50 at the last moment in a panic. It would create an almighty mess, but some way of sorting out the details would have to be found.
The thing is that the potential for this mess affects the choices that people make now.
Am I being too simplistic but we either elect MEPs or we don't. If we do and we leave, the parliament has some spare seats. Those staying will be in the correct ratio. If we don't and we stay and then have to elect our proportion of members in the required ratio for those already elected, the only problem will be a shortage of seats, because the parliament is now larger than intended. Doesn't seem too much of a problem to me; it is just furniture rearranging. Obviously I'm missing something.
My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections, then it's a big problem for the EU.
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
It's D'Hondt in Britain, but STV in Ireland, I think. Maybe different in other places. I think electoral law in various countries specifies how many MEPs are elected. I don't think it can easily be modified after the event.
Just as with Northern Ireland this has the potential to be a much bigger issue down the road that we'd wish people had dealt with earlier.
Oh crap. Really, different countries elect MEPs with different voting systems?
In that case any 3-month extension is going to have to be totally and utterly final, and purely for the purposes of straightening the paperwork on an already agreed deal - meaning in the UK that *all* the required legislation - not just one 'meaningful' vote in the Commons - to have already passed by 29th March.
Edit: @david_herdson below thinks it would be possible to sort out afterwards.
Well, suppose we have a short extension, didn't elect MEPs because we didn't plan on staying any longer, but still can't sort everything out and end up revoking Article 50 at the last moment in a panic. It would create an almighty mess, but some way of sorting out the details would have to be found.
The thing is that the potential for this mess affects the choices that people make now.
Am I being too simplistic but we either elect MEPs or we don't. If we do and we leave, the parliament has some spare seats. They will be in the correct ratio. If we don't and we stay and then have to elect our proportion of members in the required ratio for those already elected, the only problem will be a shortage of seats because the parliament is now larger than intended. Doesn't seem too much of a problem to me; it is just furniture rearranging. Obviously I'm missing something.
The EU have already allocated (most of) the UK seats to other member states, who will be conducting the May elections on that basis.
It's an almighty mess if we are somehow still members when the new Parliament reconvenes on July 2nd.
On one view the person responsible for the current mess was Cameron who did the right thing and resigned resulting in the change of leadership Cyclefree is talking about. The problem is that his replacement has been utterly inept and failed to deal effectively with the crisis he left behind, aggravating it in multiple ways.
So do we now need a replacement for the replacement? I think so but the timing is tricky. I would certainly want a replacement before we start any further negotiations about more important matters than the WA with the EU. The ideal, in my opinion, is for May to get the WA through Parliament and then step down before the transition talks begin. I am just not sure how this is possible. The risk is that getting the WA through, if she does, will be regarded as giving her a boost and increasing the risk of this happening again.
I've been saying for weeks and week that the ERG should pivot to accepting her deal - conditional upon her announcing a contest to appoint her successor - and standing down as soon as that is complete.
Neither May nor Robbins can be allowed within a hundred miles of the trade agreement talks.
On one view the person responsible for the current mess was Cameron who did the right thing and resigned resulting in the change of leadership Cyclefree is talking about. The problem is that his replacement has been utterly inept and failed to deal effectively with the crisis he left behind, aggravating it in multiple ways.
So do we now need a replacement for the replacement? I think so but the timing is tricky. I would certainly want a replacement before we start any further negotiations about more important matters than the WA with the EU. The ideal, in my opinion, is for May to get the WA through Parliament and then step down before the transition talks begin. I am just not sure how this is possible. The risk is that getting the WA through, if she does, will be regarded as giving her a boost and increasing the risk of this happening again.
I've been saying for weeks and week that the ERG should pivot to accepting her deal - conditional upon her announcing a contest to appoint her successor - and standing down as soon as that is complete.
Neither May nor Robbins can be allowed within a hundred miles of the trade agreement talks.
Hopefully we see sufficient movement on the backstop in the next couple of weeks, that that's how it plays out.
Michael Gove and Crawford Falconer for the trade agreement negotiating team, please.
If the leader comes to understand the scale of the problem sufficiently to consider that they might need to leave, are they not then finally able to lead the action needed to fix the issue - and if they go there's no guarantee that their successor will have the same understanding.
No - because, in my experience, having presided over the problem becoming very much worse, they find it hard to cast the necessary critical eye over their own previous decisions which will likely have contributed to the problem or to make the necessary staff changes. And there is also a credibility problem with the rest of the staff. if you presided over the mess, how can the staff trust you to put it right? Trust in senior management is absolutely key to achieving effective change.
There can also be the issue that they have been pushed into accepting there is a problem. That makes it hard for them to push back against the inevitable inertia etc.
What is needed is a change of tone, of mood from the top which inspires and motivates others to do the necessary. Very hard to get that when people look at a leader and say " Well, you were the one who didn't support me when I first raised this problem x years ago."
Not impossible but rare. If I look at organisations in trouble now, in my professional opinion, a change of leadership is needed. The longer it is postponed, the harder eventual recovery will be.
My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections, then it's a big problem for the EU.
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
It's D'Hondt in Britain, but STV in Ireland, I think. Maybe different in other places. I think electoral law in various countries specifies how many MEPs are elected. I don't think it can easily be modified after the event.
Just as with Northern Ireland this has the potential to be a much bigger issue down the road that we'd wish people had dealt with earlier.
Oh crap. Really, different countries elect MEPs with different voting systems?
In that case any 3-month extension is going to have to be totally and utterly final, and purely for the purposes of straightening the paperwork on an already agreed deal - meaning in the UK that *all* the required legislation - not just one 'meaningful' vote in the Commons - to have already passed by 29th March.
Edit: @david_herdson below thinks it would be possible to sort out afterwards.
Well, suppose we have a short extension, didn't elect MEPs because we didn't plan on staying any longer, but still can't sort everything out and end up revoking Article 50 at the last moment in a panic. It would create an almighty mess, but some way of sorting out the details would have to be found.
The thing is that the potential for this mess affects the choices that people make now.
Am I being too simplistic but we either elect MEPs or we don't. If we do and we leave, the parliament has some spare seats. Those staying will be in the correct ratio. If we don't and we stay and then have to elect our proportion of members in the required ratio for those already elected, the only problem will be a shortage of seats, because the parliament is now larger than intended. Doesn't seem too much of a problem to me; it is just furniture rearranging. Obviously I'm missing something.
There's a law which sets a maximum number of MEPs and then distributes them between members. Because there's also a maximum number of MEPs per country some countries do better than others out of the reallocation of some of the UK's seats.
Also, if we haven't elected MEPs, but stay, then there will be a delay before the Parliament can sit while we elect MEPs.
Well, suppose we have a short extension, didn't elect MEPs because we didn't plan on staying any longer, but still can't sort everything out and end up revoking Article 50 at the last moment in a panic. It would create an almighty mess, but some way of sorting out the details would have to be found.
The thing is that the potential for this mess affects the choices that people make now.
Am I being too simplistic but we either elect MEPs or we don't. If we do and we leave, the parliament has some spare seats. They will be in the correct ratio. If we don't and we stay and then have to elect our proportion of members in the required ratio for those already elected, the only problem will be a shortage of seats because the parliament is now larger than intended. Doesn't seem too much of a problem to me; it is just furniture rearranging. Obviously I'm missing something.
The EU have already allocated (most of) the UK seats to other member states, who will be conducting the May elections on that basis.
It's an almighty mess if we are somehow still members when the new Parliament reconvenes on July 2nd.
Still not sure of the issue (and this is a little tongue in cheek as I can imagine some bureaucrats tearing their hair out), but if we stay all the others keep their new numbers and we get our proportionate share. It is then just a bun fight for getting to sit down. I'm sure they can find some extra chairs. The parliament simply has more members but the appropriate ratio is maintained.
I know - it won't work.
The number of MEPs (in total and per country) is set in the Treaties, so if we are still members everyone else needs to revert to the current allocations - having already conducted the MEP elections with the new allocations.
I think the answer would probably be a large box of finest EU fudge, but it is just one of the things that the EU side will be thinking about when considering a request for a short extension.
Oh crap. Really, different countries elect MEPs with different voting systems?
In that case any 3-month extension is going to have to be totally and utterly final, and purely for the purposes of straightening the paperwork on an already agreed deal - meaning in the UK that *all* the required legislation - not just one 'meaningful' vote in the Commons - to have already passed by 29th March.
Edit: @david_herdson below thinks it would be possible to sort out afterwards.
Well, suppose we have a short extension, didn't elect MEPs because we didn't plan on staying any longer, but still can't sort everything out and end up revoking Article 50 at the last moment in a panic. It would create an almighty mess, but some way of sorting out the details would have to be found.
The thing is that the potential for this mess affects the choices that people make now.
Am I being too simplistic but we either elect MEPs or we don't. If we do and we leave, the parliament has some spare seats. They will be in the correct ratio. If we don't and we stay and then have to elect our proportion of members in the required ratio for those already elected, the only problem will be a shortage of seats because the parliament is now larger than intended. Doesn't seem too much of a problem to me; it is just furniture rearranging. Obviously I'm missing something.
The EU have already allocated (most of) the UK seats to other member states, who will be conducting the May elections on that basis.
It's an almighty mess if we are somehow still members when the new Parliament reconvenes on July 2nd.
Still not sure of the issue (and this is a little tongue in cheek as I can imagine some bureaucrats tearing their hair out), but if we stay all the others keep their new numbers and we get our proportionate share. It is then just a bun fight for getting to sit down. I'm sure they can find some extra chairs. The parliament simply has more members but the appropriate ratio is maintained.
I know - it won't work.
The number of MEPs (in total and per country) is set in the Treaties, so if we are still members everyone else needs to revert to the current allocations - having already conducted the MEP elections with the new allocations.
I think the answer would probably be a large box of finest EU fudge, but it is just one of the things that the EU side will be thinking about when considering a request for a short extension.
Sorry Sandpit I really have screwed up the posting haven't I?
Completely O/T but my opponent in a case has just asked the Court for more time because of an issue with his expert witness. He was good enough to send on her email which (very slightly edited) is as follows:
"Very sorry but I am at my GMC Hearing in [omitted] and they eventually gave down their findings on the Facts at 5.30. They have found me guilty of all 17 charges so I do not expect you will wish me to proceed with the report? We are awaiting their Findings on Impairment and Sanction over the next day or so I will let you know of the final recommendations if they get round to them on Wednesday "
£3.47, unless you're accusing him of pocketing the VAT somehow...
Well they’re not promising to deliver the goods to people, only to make them available to collect at the marching stations, and the website classes the £50 as a donation.
Oh crap. Really, different countries elect MEPs with different voting systems?
In that case any 3-month extension is going to have to be totally and utterly final, and purely for the purposes of straightening the paperwork on an already agreed deal - meaning in the UK that *all* the required legislation - not just one 'meaningful' vote in the Commons - to have already passed by 29th March.
Edit: @david_herdson below thinks it would be possible to sort out afterwards.
Well, suppose we have a short extension, didn't elect MEPs because we didn't plan on staying any longer, but still can't sort everything out and end up revoking Article 50 at the last moment in a panic. It would create an almighty mess, but some way of sorting out the details would have to be found.
The thing is that the potential for this mess affects the choices that people make now.
Am I being too simplistic but we either elect MEPs or we don't. If we do and we leave, the parliament has some spare seats. They will be in the correct ratio. If we don't and we stay and then have to elect our proportion of members in the required ratio for those already elected, the only problem will be a shortage of seats because the parliament is now larger than intended. Doesn't seem too much of a problem to me; it is just furniture rearranging. Obviously I'm missing something.
The EU have already allocated (most of) the UK seats to other member states, who will be conducting the May elections on that basis.
It's an almighty mess if we are somehow still members when the new Parliament reconvenes on July 2nd.
Still not sure of the issue (and this is a little tongue in cheek as I can imagine some bureaucrats tearing their hair out), but if we stay all the others keep their new numbers and we get our proportionate share. It is then just a bun fight for getting to sit down. I'm sure they can find some extra chairs. The parliament simply has more members but the appropriate ratio is maintained.
I know - it won't work.
The number of MEPs (in total and per country) is set in the Treaties, so if we are still members everyone else needs to revert to the current allocations - having already conducted the MEP elections with the new allocations.
I think the answer would probably be a large box of finest EU fudge, but it is just one of the things that the EU side will be thinking about when considering a request for a short extension.
Sorry Sandpit I really have screwed up the posting haven't I?
I think it's sorted now. Need to make sure there's the same number of open and closed blockquotes in the whole post.
Completely O/T but my opponent in a case has just asked the Court for more time because of an issue with his expert witness. He was good enough to send on her email which (very slightly edited) is as follows:
"Very sorry but I am at my GMC Hearing in [omitted] and they eventually gave down their findings on the Facts at 5.30. They have found me guilty of all 17 charges so I do not expect you will wish me to proceed with the report? We are awaiting their Findings on Impairment and Sanction over the next day or so I will let you know of the final recommendations if they get round to them on Wednesday "
Best excuse I have seen for a delay for a while.
LOL. Your opponent has probably had better days at work!
I won't comment on the Brexity stuff in this context, but I've had frequent dealings with George Eustice professionally and found him an excellent Minister - keen on his subject, knowledgeable but open to constructive ideas. So personally I'm sorry to see him go.
So Boris is prepared to bring the country down with him, if it brings him one last shot at the crown.
Reminds me of his series on the most unscrupulous roman emperors, which he always seemed more fascinated by than the glories of Athens.
Almost the only good thing to come out of the whole sorry Brexit escapade (pending collapse of the two party system) is Boris's descent from favoured son to busted flush.
I won't comment on the Brexity stuff in this context, but I've had frequent dealings with George Eustice professionally and found him an excellent Minister - keen on his subject, knowledgeable but open to constructive ideas. So personally I'm sorry to see him go.
Fair play Nick. You didn't have to say that, and it's good to see some cross-party appreciation in what's becoming an increasingly polarised political environment.
I think the "March to leave" website sums up the issues - the picture presented is of a nice walk on a rural path in the sunlit uplands. The reality is going to be lorries passing within a foot of yourself on a busy A road.
I think the "March to leave" website sums up the issues - the picture presented is of a nice walk on a rural path in the sunlit uplands. The reality is going to be lorries passing within a foot of yourself on a busy A road.
I planned a long circular walk with the dog recently where a short stretch of A road was needed to complete the loop. As it was only a few hundred yards back to the parked car, it didn't seem like a big deal, until I arrived and realised there was no verge and we'd be in the road with a continual stream of heavy traffic passing within inches of us. We did most of it at a sprint when there seemed to be gaps in the traffic; there's no way I would do anything like that again.
On one view the person responsible for the current mess was Cameron who did the right thing and resigned resulting in the change of leadership Cyclefree is talking about. The problem is that his replacement has been utterly inept and failed to deal effectively with the crisis he left behind, aggravating it in multiple ways.
So do we now need a replacement for the replacement? I think so but the timing is tricky. I would certainly want a replacement before we start any further negotiations about more important matters than the WA with the EU. The ideal, in my opinion, is for May to get the WA through Parliament and then step down before the transition talks begin. I am just not sure how this is possible. The risk is that getting the WA through, if she does, will be regarded as giving her a boost and increasing the risk of this happening again.
I've been saying for weeks and week that the ERG should pivot to accepting her deal - conditional upon her announcing a contest to appoint her successor - and standing down as soon as that is complete.
Neither May nor Robbins can be allowed within a hundred miles of the trade agreement talks.
Hopefully we see sufficient movement on the backstop in the next couple of weeks, that that's how it plays out.
Michael Gove and Crawford Falconer for the trade agreement negotiating team, please.
Under the direction of Prime Minister Geoffrey Cox, I'm sure they'd get a workable arrangement....
I think the "March to leave" website sums up the issues - the picture presented is of a nice walk on a rural path in the sunlit uplands. The reality is going to be lorries passing within a foot of yourself on a busy A road.
It would be a terrible shame if one of those lorries lost control and wiped out Farage and Tice !
I think the "March to leave" website sums up the issues - the picture presented is of a nice walk on a rural path in the sunlit uplands. The reality is going to be lorries passing within a foot of yourself on a busy A road.
It would be a terrible shame if one of those lorries lost control and wiped out Farage and Tice !
And people say the leavers are the nasty ones, eh?
I think the "March to leave" website sums up the issues - the picture presented is of a nice walk on a rural path in the sunlit uplands. The reality is going to be lorries passing within a foot of yourself on a busy A road.
It would be a terrible shame if one of those lorries lost control and wiped out Farage and Tice !
And people say the leavers are the nasty ones, eh?
What do you want me to say . I’d be heartbroken and say a prayer . Personally I couldn’t care less. Both took part in a campaign to vilify immigrants and are hate mongers . Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Very interesting header. What strikes me is that despite the usual focus on systems and structures and procedures it is usually the bad behaviour of people - and a toxic culture which enables and rewards such behaviour - that is the root cause of scandals in organizations and sectors. Certainly this was the case in the one that I have direct personal experience of from the inside - the banking crash of 07/08.
Referring to the way some Indians were executed by the British after the 1857 rebellion was suppressed, perhaps?
A fitting punishment for the Brexit mutineers.
Actually the kerfuffle over which kind of fat was used in the sepoys' cartridges has all the hallmarks of a Daily Mail EU scare story.
I assume you are of the opinion that India would be much better if it had stayed Under the control of the East India Company
I don't want to get into the wrongs and rights of the colonial period, but a question: was India a single entity before the EIC, was it a series of sometimes-warring kingdoms, or was it both?
Comments
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1101140815064297472
On Cardinal Pell I have been reading in the Australian press some disquiet over his conviction - based on the sole testimony on one complainant (the other allegedly having denied the allegation before his death) and no other evidence of grooming or other assaults, which would tend to be unusual in these types of cases.
If the leader comes to understand the scale of the problem sufficiently to consider that they might need to leave, are they not then finally able to lead the action needed to fix the issue - and if they go there's no guarantee that their successor will have the same understanding.
If Theresa May comes to that conclusion then we are basically in that situation. She'd know there's a good chance that someone anointed by the ERG would take over and that would make the situation far worse.
https://www.marchtoleave.com/
Looks like they're planning on going over the Transporter Bridge. Could be a bit of a wait to get across especially if it's high winds. Still, 70p a person to Middlesbrough Council ....
We should also have the Julian Surprise, after Julian the Apostate who got made Caesar (junior emperor) largely on the basis he was the only living male relative of the emperor.
"Being a core marcher means you will receive an official March to Leave kit to help you on the march. These are the items you will receive on the day:
Waterproof coat
Beanie hat
Gloves
Water bottle
T-Shirt
Wristband
High visibility blue jacket"
https://www.marchtoleave.com/march
WRT scandals, I remember how I and fellow schoolboys took it for granted in the eighties that there were some "dodgy" teachers, with very wandering hands.
So, for example, the Aylesbury to Beaconsfield leg on 28th March looks like it just goes straight down the A413, so they will pass within a couple of miles of Chequers when they could with little additional difficulty walk past the official country residence of the Prime Minister.
It doesn't appear they've just gone into Google Maps and entered the 'walk' tab.
If they need someone to design 'proper' routes, I'm available for a fee.
Edit: or is it just more visible than other blue jackets?
Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.
The original march in 1936 was all about unemployment. Not sure this one has quite the same resonance.
If you are interested in choral music, The Burning Road is a cantata by Will Todd based on the march.
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/1101154411248787456?s=21
Just as with Northern Ireland this has the potential to be a much bigger issue down the road that we'd wish people had dealt with earlier.
The selected towns are probably those with activists from Leave Means Leave.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4078585,-1.1161094,3a,75y,182.83h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD3MG78W_kC0AovN425ZvsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
We have heard a lot from Remainers since June 2016 while the Leavers have been kind of forgotten so now is their chance to be heard...
In all seriousness, there must be a lot of work in organising this sort of thing. Not just in planning a route, but I assume in negotiating with councils, police and other authorities. And in keeping people safe and fit.
A decade or so ago I planned a route across Britain for a woman's charity walk. It took ages, and getting council permissions for charity collections was really hard for her. Street collection licences are a massive difficulty (on my walk I just didn't bother - nobody complained).
In a now-deleted opinion piece, Anna Maria Tuckett, an EU migrant and carer for her disabled son, wrote that she had been advised she was ‘unlikely to qualify for citizenship’ after Brexit and therefore could be deported and separated from her son. The piece also seemed to suggest that she could be denied settled status because she is a home-based carer.
If this were true, it would, of course, be a travesty. I could understand why the Guardian would run it. A faceless Home Office official taking an immigrant mother and carer from her son because of the evils of Brexit. It’s liberal clickbait.
The only thing is, the story is total rubbish.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/02/28/the-guardians-anti-brexit-fake-news/
http://tinyurl.com/y4qvyevm
In that case any 3-month extension is going to have to be totally and utterly final, and purely for the purposes of straightening the paperwork on an already agreed deal - meaning in the UK that *all* the required legislation - not just one 'meaningful' vote in the Commons - to have already passed by 29th March.
Edit: @david_herdson below thinks it would be possible to sort out afterwards.
I'm also rather against 'marches' across the country where the start of a day does not end at the previous day's endpoint. If you'e going to skip bits, why not just skip the entire thing?
I would hope they'll have an escort, which might cause traffic hold ups.
Mind you, I don't suppose the idea is to pass un-noticed.
I assume that they will actually have to have permission from police and councils, who may alter the route somewhat to take account of traffic patterns and pubic disruption etc.
It's been a couple of decades since I was involved in organising a long walk, (which was for a charitable rather than political purpose). On a couple of very rural but unavoidable stretches we had a couple of well-illuminated support vehicles causing havoc by driving at walking pace on A-roads to shield half a dozen walkers from the traffic.
There can also be the issue that they have been pushed into accepting there is a problem. That makes it hard for them to push back against the inevitable inertia etc.
What is needed is a change of tone, of mood from the top which inspires and motivates others to do the necessary. Very hard to get that when people look at a leader and say " Well, you were the one who didn't support me when I first raised this problem x years ago."
Not impossible but rare. If I look at organisations in trouble now, in my professional opinion, a change of leadership is needed. The longer it is postponed, the harder eventual recovery will be.
The thing is that the potential for this mess affects the choices that people make now.
So do we now need a replacement for the replacement? I think so but the timing is tricky. I would certainly want a replacement before we start any further negotiations about more important matters than the WA with the EU. The ideal, in my opinion, is for May to get the WA through Parliament and then step down before the transition talks begin. I am just not sure how this is possible. The risk is that getting the WA through, if she does, will be regarded as giving her a boost and increasing the risk of this happening again.
Ironically were Brexit to result in Nissan closing it would be true...
It's an almighty mess if we are somehow still members when the new Parliament reconvenes on July 2nd.
Neither May nor Robbins can be allowed within a hundred miles of the trade agreement talks.
Michael Gove and Crawford Falconer for the trade agreement negotiating team, please.
Also, if we haven't elected MEPs, but stay, then there will be a delay before the Parliament can sit while we elect MEPs.
RIP.
I think the answer would probably be a large box of finest EU fudge, but it is just one of the things that the EU side will be thinking about when considering a request for a short extension.
EU Parliament Press Release on the subject:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180607IPR05241/number-of-meps-to-be-reduced-after-eu-elections-in-2019
It doesn't deal with if there's uncertainty over whether or not we will still be a member on the date of the elections (which vary slightly between member states according to their own electoral norms).
Reminds me of his series on the most unscrupulous roman emperors, which he always seemed more fascinated by than the glories of Athens.
"Very sorry but I am at my GMC Hearing in [omitted] and they eventually gave down their findings on the Facts at 5.30. They have found me guilty of all 17 charges so I do not expect you will wish me to proceed with the report?
We are awaiting their Findings on Impairment and Sanction over the next day or so
I will let you know of the final recommendations if they get round to them on Wednesday "
Best excuse I have seen for a delay for a while.
https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1101168555129597952?s=21
One is a good idea which will transform the country. The other is a blonde shagger ..
Actually the kerfuffle over which kind of fat was used in the sepoys' cartridges has all the hallmarks of a Daily Mail EU scare story.