On the bright side, there could be some good late deals for the rest of us on luxury Tuscan villas as a result.
Most workers only get Good Friday and Easter Monday off as bank holidays - why do MPs need nearly 3 weeks off (from 4 April to 23 April)?. Even primary school kids don't get that long!
Trying to work out what happened around 1820 that he was worried about. Not Waterloo presumably. Congress of Vienna maybe?
The passing of the Great Reform Act.
It was all downhill from there for the Bruges Group.
It would be funny if it was not serious but hearing the DUP are seeking a long extension, the exact opposite of ERG demands, now highlights not only ERG's stupidity over the first MV but they have now been cast into the wilderness by those they support or more specifically have tried to use
It is serious, but it is still funny. The ERG clearly too thick and ignorant to know the ruthlessness of politics the other side of the Irish Sea. They thought they were using the DUP, while the DUP were quietly fitting them up with concrete shoes under the table.
It's hilarious that people like Francois came along with jingoistic war stories only to end up being served for lunch by the representatives of a party actually involved in a civil war.
The ONS released the latest electorate figures last week showing why we badly need a boundary review. I have excluded the special island seats.
Top 20 England
Milton Keynes South 92,000 North West Cambridgeshire 91,121 Sleaford and North Hykeham 90,874 West Ham 90,048 South Northamptonshire 88,039 Milton Keynes North 87,654 Ashford 87,102 North East Bedfordshire 86,990 Banbury 86,431 Bury St Edmunds 86,374 Wantage 86,243 Manchester Central 86,233 Folkestone and Hythe 85,855 Bermondsey and Old Southwark 85,283 Croydon North 85,196 Warrington South 84,741 Poplar and Limehouse 84,355 East Devon 84,195 Mid Bedfordshire 84,055 South East Cambridgeshire 83,958
Bottom 20 England
Aldridge-Brownhills 59,382 Putney 59,382 Wolverhampton North East 59,367 Hexham 59,298 Nottingham East 58,930 Cities of London and Westminster 58,639 Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle 58,638 Leeds North West 58,553 Middlesbrough 58,518 Northampton North 58,398 Kensington 57,627 Berwick-upon-Tweed 57,544 Wolverhampton South West 57,478 Wirral South 56,350 Stoke-on-Trent Central 55,898 Preston 55,512 Blackpool South 55,510 Newcastle upon Tyne East 55,459 Wirral West 54,249 Newcastle upon Tyne Central 53,362
The low electorates for Kensington and Westminster back up the comment downthread about the super rich moving in.
Top 5 Scotland
Linlithgow and East Falkirk 85,436 Falkirk 82,830 Livingston 80,487 East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow 78,606 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 78,164
Bottom 5 Scotland
Aberdeen North 58,620 North East Fife 57,143 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 53,220 Glasgow North 52,059 Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross 46,407
Top 3 Wales
Cardiff South and Penarth 74,000 Vale of Glamorgan 73,510 Cardiff North 64,953
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.
It is and it isn't. The boundaries are somewhat arbitrary, and relics of history.I have some sympathy for Mr B2's view. There needs to be some aspect or proportionality or it is a huge incentive to abstain, which is very bad for participation.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Trying to work out what happened around 1820 that he was worried about. Not Waterloo presumably. Congress of Vienna maybe?
The passing of the Great Reform Act.
It was all downhill from there for the Bruges Group.
It would be funny if it was not serious but hearing the DUP are seeking a long extension, the exact opposite of ERG demands, now highlights not only ERG's stupidity over the first MV but they have now been cast into the wilderness by those they support or more specifically have tried to use
It is serious, but it is still funny. The ERG clearly too thick and ignorant to know the ruthlessness of politics the other side of the Irish Sea. They thought they were using the DUP, while the DUP were quietly fitting them up with concrete shoes under the table.
Good article. On Iraq, the eagerness to allege that the government was mendacious and wicked distracted from the very strong case that it was quite simply wrong and appropriate lessons should be learned.
It's quite common for Governments and politicians generally to bend the truth, and routine to be selective in what they emphasise. Actual lying and deliberate plotting to undermine justice are IMO mercifully rare.
Or the pollsters are failing to recruit leave voters to their samples.
As I raised on the previous thread, which of these explanations is right is critical. If people are suffering from false recall then polls that weight by remain/leave (which I think many do but maybe I'm wrong) could be over-weighting leave voters and hence the Conservatives by a significant margin.
The ONS released the latest electorate figures last week showing why we badly need a boundary review. I have excluded the special island seats.
Top 20 England
Milton Keynes South 92,000 North West Cambridgeshire 91,121 Sleaford and North Hykeham 90,874 West Ham 90,048 South Northamptonshire 88,039 Milton Keynes North 87,654 Ashford 87,102 North East Bedfordshire 86,990 Banbury 86,431 Bury St Edmunds 86,374 Wantage 86,243 Manchester Central 86,233 Folkestone and Hythe 85,855 Bermondsey and Old Southwark 85,283 Croydon North 85,196 Warrington South 84,741 Poplar and Limehouse 84,355 East Devon 84,195 Mid Bedfordshire 84,055 South East Cambridgeshire 83,958
Bottom 20 England
Aldridge-Brownhills 59,382 Putney 59,382 Wolverhampton North East 59,367 Hexham 59,298 Nottingham East 58,930 Cities of London and Westminster 58,639 Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle 58,638 Leeds North West 58,553 Middlesbrough 58,518 Northampton North 58,398 Kensington 57,627 Berwick-upon-Tweed 57,544 Wolverhampton South West 57,478 Wirral South 56,350 Stoke-on-Trent Central 55,898 Preston 55,512 Blackpool South 55,510 Newcastle upon Tyne East 55,459 Wirral West 54,249 Newcastle upon Tyne Central 53,362
The low electorates for Kensington and Westminster back up the comment downthread about the super rich moving in.
Top 5 Scotland
Linlithgow and East Falkirk 85,436 Falkirk 82,830 Livingston 80,487 East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow 78,606 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 78,164
Bottom 5 Scotland
Aberdeen North 58,620 North East Fife 57,143 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 53,220 Glasgow North 52,059 Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross 46,407
Top 3 Wales
Cardiff South and Penarth 74,000 Vale of Glamorgan 73,510 Cardiff North 64,953
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.
It is and it isn't. The boundaries are somewhat arbitrary, and relics of history.I have some sympathy for Mr B2's view. There needs to be some aspect or proportionality or it is a huge incentive to abstain, which is very bad for participation.
The problem is it doesn't matter how you draw the boundaries in, say, the south Wales valleys, most of the seats are going to be very safe for Labour. You can't artificially generate marginal seats in most places.
Trying to work out what happened around 1820 that he was worried about. Not Waterloo presumably. Congress of Vienna maybe?
The passing of the Great Reform Act.
It was all downhill from there for the Bruges Group.
It would be funny if it was not serious but hearing the DUP are seeking a long extension, the exact opposite of ERG demands, now highlights not only ERG's stupidity over the first MV but they have now been cast into the wilderness by those they support or more specifically have tried to use
It is serious, but it is still funny. The ERG clearly too thick and ignorant to know the ruthlessness of politics the other side of the Irish Sea. They thought they were using the DUP, while the DUP were quietly fitting them up with concrete shoes under the table.
The ERG obviously know even less about Irish politics than Karen Bradley.
Or the pollsters are failing to recruit leave voters to their samples.
As I raised on the previous thread, which of these explanations is right is critical. If people are suffering from false recall then polls that weight by remain/leave (which I think many do but maybe I'm wrong) could be over-weighting leave voters and hence the Conservatives by a significant margin.
Well, this year's local elections will give a pointer to how accurate the polls are. Last year's (the Conservatives a hair ahead of Labour) were pretty much in line with what the polls were showing at the time.
By contrast, in the local elections in both 2016 and 2017, Labour outperformed their showing in the polls at the time, which should've indicated the aggressive changes the pollsters had made to their methodology after the 2015 general election had gone too far.
On the bright side, there could be some good late deals for the rest of us on luxury Tuscan villas as a result.
Most workers only get Good Friday and Easter Monday off as bank holidays - why do MPs need nearly 3 weeks off (from 4 April to 23 April)?. Even primary school kids don't get that long!
Most went to private school of course so are used to longer holidays, poor dears.
But even an embarrassing Brexiteer climbdown can't saved the PM's deal
Disappointingly, a number of pro-Brexit Conservative MPs, including most notably Jacob Rees-Mogg, are now apparently considering switching to backing May’s deal. That won’t make her deal pass. Even if every pro-Brexit MP had switched to backing May’s deal at the second vote, it would still have been defeated by its pro-Remain opponents. And since that time, the pro-Remain Conservative rebels’ ranks have expanded.
Good article. On Iraq, the eagerness to allege that the government was mendacious and wicked distracted from the very strong case that it was quite simply wrong and appropriate lessons should be learned.
It's quite common for Governments and politicians generally to bend the truth, and routine to be selective in what they emphasise. Actual lying and deliberate plotting to undermine justice are IMO mercifully rare.
Hmm, the Labour government's lead up to the Iraq war was unfortunately a crystal-clear example of deliberate plotting and lying, undoubtedly the worst by a country mile of the last 50 years. That they got away with it in the conclusion to the Hutton Report (but fortunately not in its content, which laid it all out clearly) was an extraordinary piece of luck for Blair - somehow he managed to get the one judge in the entire judiciary who would have written that conclusion based on the evidence in front of him.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
It is serious, but it is still funny. The ERG clearly too thick and ignorant to know the ruthlessness of politics the other side of the Irish Sea. They thought they were using the DUP, while the DUP were quietly fitting them up with concrete shoes under the table.
The ERG obviously know even less about Irish politics than Karen Bradley.
Nobody should be surprised by this.
This was obvious since Rees-Mogg went around saying that there would be passport checks at the Irish border to stop immigration, conveniently forgetting about the Common Travel Area.
Good article. On Iraq, the eagerness to allege that the government was mendacious and wicked distracted from the very strong case that it was quite simply wrong and appropriate lessons should be learned.
It's quite common for Governments and politicians generally to bend the truth, and routine to be selective in what they emphasise. Actual lying and deliberate plotting to undermine justice are IMO mercifully rare.
but the Govt was medacious and wicked, irrespective of what any report said.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
If it is just a delay in settling the claim, then I guess I live with that. But suppose A50 revoked before 29/3. Now was it extended when the decision was formally adopted on 22/3 or has revoke meant that extension has never happened? This is a risk that I believe that I shouldn't have to suffer.
If May gets MV3 through with the help of the ERG and Labour MP's, and with DUP against. Won't corbyn then table a VONC and get his General Election as the DUP could then scupper WA by doing so?.
If so then that leaves the ERG in a quandary; If they vote MV3 down, they risk losing brexit, if they help MV3 pass then some will surely lose their seats within the next six weeks?
The ONS released the latest electorate figures last week showing why we badly need a boundary review. I have excluded the special island seats.
Top 20 England
Milton Keynes South 92,000 North West Cambridgeshire 91,121 Sleaford and North Hykeham 90,874 West Ham 90,048 South Northamptonshire 88,039 Milton Keynes North 87,654 Ashford 87,102 North East Bedfordshire 86,990 Banbury 86,431 Bury St Edmunds 86,374 Wantage 86,243 Manchester Central 86,233 Folkestone and Hythe 85,855 Bermondsey and Old Southwark 85,283 Croydon North 85,196 Warrington South 84,741 Poplar and Limehouse 84,355 East Devon 84,195 Mid Bedfordshire 84,055 South East Cambridgeshire 83,958
Bottom 20 England
Aldridge-Brownhills 59,382 Putney 59,382 Wolverhampton North East 59,367 Hexham 59,298 Nottingham East 58,930 Cities of London and Westminster 58,639 Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle 58,638 Leeds North West 58,553 Middlesbrough 58,518 Northampton North 58,398 Kensington 57,627 Berwick-upon-Tweed 57,544 Wolverhampton South West 57,478 Wirral South 56,350 Stoke-on-Trent Central 55,898 Preston 55,512 Blackpool South 55,510 Newcastle upon Tyne East 55,459 Wirral West 54,249 Newcastle upon Tyne Central 53,362
The low electorates for Kensington and Westminster back up the comment downthread about the super rich moving in.
Top 5 Scotland
Linlithgow and East Falkirk 85,436 Falkirk 82,830 Livingston 80,487 East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow 78,606 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 78,164
Bottom 5 Scotland
Aberdeen North 58,620 North East Fife 57,143 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 53,220 Glasgow North 52,059 Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross 46,407
Top 3 Wales
Cardiff South and Penarth 74,000 Vale of Glamorgan 73,510 Cardiff North 64,953
Interesting. Do you have a link to the full figures? Could Google of course but am busy.
Slightly makes a mockery of one person/one vote. Our system is broken, it needs drastic reform. The idea that we have the right to moan about those pesky undemocratic Europeans is an absolute joke.
Shame the previous boundary reform was voted down then, wasn’t it?
A large number of MPs don't want reform, for the same reason that local councillors object to unitary authorities; less jobs for the boys.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
If it is just a delay in settling the claim, then I guess I live with that. But suppose A50 revoked before 29/3. Now was it extended when the decision was formally adopted on 22/3 or has revoke meant that extension has never happened? This is a risk that I believe that I shouldn't have to suffer.
If its revoked before 29/3 then it could be argued that the extension didn't happen. You may think its a risk they you shouldn't have to suffer . . . but then I imagine that Betfair also think that's a risk they shouldn't have to suffer either. And they get to make the decision.
Since in 3 days time we know for certain either way its not long you're waiting.
It is serious, but it is still funny. The ERG clearly too thick and ignorant to know the ruthlessness of politics the other side of the Irish Sea. They thought they were using the DUP, while the DUP were quietly fitting them up with concrete shoes under the table.
The ERG obviously know even less about Irish politics than Karen Bradley.
Nobody should be surprised by this.
This was obvious since Rees-Mogg went around saying that there would be passport checks at the Irish border to stop immigration, conveniently forgetting about the Common Travel Area.
Irish airports already operate passport controls for visitors from the UK and have done for years. At Dublin airport they don't have a mechanism for segregating UK arrivals - but this still applies at Kerry where the only flights most days are from Dublin, Stansted and Luton.
I once arrived in Dublin from London and had to join a massive queue at passport control as two flights had just arrived from the US and we were merged. It took me nearly an hour to clear passport control - in the CTA. I went to Singapore a couple of weeks later and got through passport control in 30 seconds (including fingerprints and stamping my landing card).
If May gets MV3 through with the help of the ERG and Labour MP's, and with DUP against. Won't corbyn then table a VONC and get his General Election as the DUP could then scupper WA by doing so?.
If so then that leaves the ERG in a quandary; If they vote MV3 down, they risk losing brexit, if they help MV3 pass then some will surely lose their seats within the next six weeks?
Yes - but would the Con party with a new leader do better at a GE than with no Brexit and May in charge ?
If yes then well call the DUP's bluff.
All irrelevant as MV3 is still going down by 100 votes.
Good article. On Iraq, the eagerness to allege that the government was mendacious and wicked distracted from the very strong case that it was quite simply wrong and appropriate lessons should be learned.
It's quite common for Governments and politicians generally to bend the truth, and routine to be selective in what they emphasise. Actual lying and deliberate plotting to undermine justice are IMO mercifully rare.
That's true. However, the case that Blair presented to parliament, and which the government presented to the country, were a good deal more biased than either had the right to expect on such a critical question. This wasn't a matter of selecting statistics for a Newsnight interview; it was about misleadingly gaining votes to send the country to war. Now, it might well be that Blair believed Saddam to have WMD - Saddam had, after all, gone out of his way to prevent weapons inspectors concluding otherwise - but the case as to how capable that threat was was substantially overstated (or at least, the confidence in that assessment was).
If May gets MV3 through with the help of the ERG and Labour MP's, and with DUP against. Won't corbyn then table a VONC and get his General Election as the DUP could then scupper WA by doing so?.
If so then that leaves the ERG in a quandary; If they vote MV3 down, they risk losing brexit, if they help MV3 pass then some will surely lose their seats within the next six weeks?
Welcome to PB!
No, since there is still an executive. All the WA needs is for a motion to pass.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
If it is just a delay in settling the claim, then I guess I live with that. But suppose A50 revoked before 29/3. Now was it extended when the decision was formally adopted on 22/3 or has revoke meant that extension has never happened? This is a risk that I believe that I shouldn't have to suffer.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
Good article. On Iraq, the eagerness to allege that the government was mendacious and wicked distracted from the very strong case that it was quite simply wrong and appropriate lessons should be learned.
It's quite common for Governments and politicians generally to bend the truth, and routine to be selective in what they emphasise. Actual lying and deliberate plotting to undermine justice are IMO mercifully rare.
That's true. However, the case that Blair presented to parliament, and which the government presented to the country, were a good deal more biased than either had the right to expect on such a critical question. This wasn't a matter of selecting statistics for a Newsnight interview; it was about misleadingly gaining votes to send the country to war. Now, it might well be that Blair believed Saddam to have WMD - Saddam had, after all, gone out of his way to prevent weapons inspectors concluding otherwise - but the case as to how capable that threat was was substantially overstated (or at least, the confidence in that assessment was).
Yes. The "fact" that swung my opinion (and dominated the front pages the following day) was the "45 minutes before our bases in Cyprus get it".
The "defence" that this confused two "facts" (range of Iraqi strategic weapons with alleged preparedness of much shorter range tactical battlefield chemical weapons) was a mis-interpretation the government was happy to let stand. It was reported that Campbell was happy with this confusion.
To be fair they all pretty much agree what sort of Brexit they want - but some have accepted what they want is no longer an option (so are opting for second best) and others haven't. The former are backing the deal - the latter are not yet.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
The change in date in international and EU law has already happened as a consequence of the exchange of letters between the government and the EU. What you are referring to is the requirement in domestic UK law to align the domestic legislative position with that. If we were to fail to do so, we'd be in a legal mess but the date wouldn't change.
AFAIK the Lords aren't involved - the UK bit is a statutory instrument so the minister decrees it and the Commons rubber-stamp it.
But even an embarrassing Brexiteer climbdown can't saved the PM's deal
Disappointingly, a number of pro-Brexit Conservative MPs, including most notably Jacob Rees-Mogg, are now apparently considering switching to backing May’s deal. That won’t make her deal pass. Even if every pro-Brexit MP had switched to backing May’s deal at the second vote, it would still have been defeated by its pro-Remain opponents. And since that time, the pro-Remain Conservative rebels’ ranks have expanded.
Since the last vote, May has pissed off all MPs, particularly Labour Leaver MPs who don't feel responsible for the government shambles. And Tory MPs who would prefer a softer exit now have at least a potential route toward getting it. Both make their support for MV3 less likely than MV2.
The only argument flowing the other way (for Labour leavers) is that of 'last chance'. But May's deal is an option within Wednesday's exercise and a WA will be needed for most of the indicative options. So a vote this week wouldn't in reality be a last chance anyway.
Previously, local Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were only allowed to raise this by a maximum of £12. But, in December, the government increased the limit and almost every force opted for the new maximum.
The ONS released the latest electorate figures last week showing why we badly need a boundary review. I have excluded the special island seats.
Top 20 England
Milton Keynes South 92,000 North West Cambridgeshire 91,121 Sleaford and North Hykeham 90,874 West Ham 90,048 South Northamptonshire 88,039 Milton Keynes North 87,654 Ashford 87,102 North East Bedfordshire 86,990 Banbury 86,431 Bury St Edmunds 86,374 Wantage 86,243 Manchester Central 86,233 Folkestone and Hythe 85,855 Bermondsey and Old Southwark 85,283 Croydon North 85,196 Warrington South 84,741 Poplar and Limehouse 84,355 East Devon 84,195 Mid Bedfordshire 84,055 South East Cambridgeshire 83,958
Bottom 20 England
Aldridge-Brownhills 59,382 Putney 59,382 Wolverhampton North East 59,367 Hexham 59,298 Nottingham East 58,930 Cities of London and Westminster 58,639 Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle 58,638 Leeds North West 58,553 Middlesbrough 58,518 Northampton North 58,398 Kensington 57,627 Berwick-upon-Tweed 57,544 Wolverhampton South West 57,478 Wirral South 56,350 Stoke-on-Trent Central 55,898 Preston 55,512 Blackpool South 55,510 Newcastle upon Tyne East 55,459 Wirral West 54,249 Newcastle upon Tyne Central 53,362
The low electorates for Kensington and Westminster back up the comment downthread about the super rich moving in.
Top 5 Scotland
Linlithgow and East Falkirk 85,436 Falkirk 82,830 Livingston 80,487 East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow 78,606 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 78,164
Bottom 5 Scotland
Aberdeen North 58,620 North East Fife 57,143 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 53,220 Glasgow North 52,059 Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross 46,407
Top 3 Wales
Cardiff South and Penarth 74,000 Vale of Glamorgan 73,510 Cardiff North 64,953
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.
That's not really the point. Which is that in such a seat it makes no difference whether 5000 votes switch from the MP to their opponent or vice versa.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Posh Tory Leave voters in the Home Counties are still not as posh as even posher Tory Remain voters in Kensington and Chelsea, Cities of London and Westminster and Richmond Park
Now we're coming into a cultural values question. Posh Tory leave voters in the countryside consider themselves to be more authentically at the top of the tree, essentially from both a more culturally conservative and more culturally nativist point of view.
Well they aren't, Kensington and , even if landed gentry, is still below that on the pecking order
I'd agree with you right up to the last point. Nowadays even the wealthiest children of the aristocracy, with 1000 years of Norman wealth behind them, have often been priced out the grandest london houses by the international mega-rich.
There are more of both aristocrats and gentry outside London, I would say - and crucially, where they are to be found also have a much more powerful relationship with the communities nearby,
The wealthiest district of all is probably Highgate Village, and the streets off Hampstead Lane, like The Bishops Avenue. There's a house with enormous grounds worth £300 m, owned by the Mayor of Moscow.
Just looked on street view - there are some right monstrosities on that road.
The usual practice is to buy one monstrosity tear it down, and build another monstrosity.
It is serious, but it is still funny. The ERG clearly too thick and ignorant to know the ruthlessness of politics the other side of the Irish Sea. They thought they were using the DUP, while the DUP were quietly fitting them up with concrete shoes under the table.
The ERG obviously know even less about Irish politics than Karen Bradley.
Nobody should be surprised by this.
This was obvious since Rees-Mogg went around saying that there would be passport checks at the Irish border to stop immigration, conveniently forgetting about the Common Travel Area.
It goes to the heart of the DUP's raison d'etre, namely the preservation, unaltered, of the current relationship between GB and NI. If they compromise on that - and the backstop does compromise on it - then they destroy the whole basis on which their party is built. Set against that Brexit is a side issue. And anyway they have probably come to realise that Brexit brings an Irish unity referendum closer and sentiment is moving against it in NI just as it is in GB.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
If it is just a delay in settling the claim, then I guess I live with that. But suppose A50 revoked before 29/3. Now was it extended when the decision was formally adopted on 22/3 or has revoke meant that extension has never happened? This is a risk that I believe that I shouldn't have to suffer.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Indeed. Though over 90% of MPs [and 80% of votes cast] were elected on manifestos pledging to deliver Brexit.
If every MP voted blindly on the manifesto presented by their front bench there would be no point to their existence. It perhaps suggests you don't understand our system of representative parliamentary democracy. It certainly didn't stop Brain of Britain Ian Duncan Smith and various other oddballs defying the party whip.
The ONS released the latest electorate figures last week showing why we badly need a boundary review. I have excluded the special island seats.
Top 20 England
Milton Keynes South 92,000 North West Cambridgeshire 91,121 Sleaford and North Hykeham 90,874 West Ham 90,048 South Northamptonshire 88,039 Milton Keynes North 87,654 Ashford 87,102 North East Bedfordshire 86,990 Banbury 86,431 Bury St Edmunds 86,374 Wantage 86,243 Manchester Central 86,233 Folkestone and Hythe 85,855 Bermondsey and Old Southwark 85,283 Croydon North 85,196 Warrington South 84,741 Poplar and Limehouse 84,355 East Devon 84,195 Mid Bedfordshire 84,055 South East Cambridgeshire 83,958
Bottom 20 England
Aldridge-Brownhills 59,382 Putney 59,382 Wolverhampton North East 59,367 Hexham 59,298 Nottingham East 58,930 Cities of London and Westminster 58,639 Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle 58,638 Leeds North West 58,553 Middlesbrough 58,518 Northampton North 58,398 Kensington 57,627 Berwick-upon-Tweed 57,544 Wolverhampton South West 57,478 Wirral South 56,350 Stoke-on-Trent Central 55,898 Preston 55,512 Blackpool South 55,510 Newcastle upon Tyne East 55,459 Wirral West 54,249 Newcastle upon Tyne Central 53,362
The low electorates for Kensington and Westminster back up the comment downthread about the super rich moving in.
Top 5 Scotland
Linlithgow and East Falkirk 85,436 Falkirk 82,830 Livingston 80,487 East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow 78,606 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 78,164
Bottom 5 Scotland
Aberdeen North 58,620 North East Fife 57,143 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 53,220 Glasgow North 52,059 Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross 46,407
Top 3 Wales
Cardiff South and Penarth 74,000 Vale of Glamorgan 73,510 Cardiff North 64,953
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.
I really object to this use of 'voters' as a if they were a single entity.
I am in a safe seat because the majority of my neighbours vote Tory but over 1/3rd of us didn't vote for him - we didn't make it a safe seat. The same happens in safe Labour seats.
The fairest system of constituency representation is clearly the Single Stochastic Vote.
Con take Bootle, LDs take Boston, Lab take Harborough, all possible, albeit unlikely.
From a couple of comments on the previous thread and the petition signatures by constituency, I wondered what would be the most TIG-able seats.
My guess: Cities of London and Westminster (as suggested on the previous thread) Streatham Finchley and Golders Green Putney Chelsea and Fulham Kensington South Cambridgeshire
... which leads me to thinking that both Ummuna and Allen might be in with shots of holding on where they are, especially if they try the by-election route first.
Isn’t it S(ain)t Reatham now?
People called it that when I lived there, over 20 years ago.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
If it is just a delay in settling the claim, then I guess I live with that. But suppose A50 revoked before 29/3. Now was it extended when the decision was formally adopted on 22/3 or has revoke meant that extension has never happened? This is a risk that I believe that I shouldn't have to suffer.
If its revoked before 29/3 then it could be argued that the extension didn't happen. You may think its a risk they you shouldn't have to suffer . . . but then I imagine that Betfair also think that's a risk they shouldn't have to suffer either. And they get to make the decision.
Since in 3 days time we know for certain either way its not long you're waiting.
If SI wasn't presented by govt, would you accept that EU had extended the deadline and then UK had chosen not to use that extension? Which way should claim be judged in that circumstance?
I guess I am a bit narked by befair's lack of clear explanation: First they said agreement had been announced but decision not agreed. Press release I sent them was clear there was political agreement on 21st followed by being adopted formalising the agreement on 22nd. Then they send stuff from before the agreement was reached saying it was conditional on a vote in parliament. I explained that it had changed and agreement was for extension whether parliament votes for May's deal or not and since then they have not replied to further enquiry.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
On topic, a great article from @Cyclefree that deserves a lot more attention than it will get in all the Brexit mayhem. If a truth and reconciliation committee is ever set up, we can expect precious little of neither.
Indeed. Though over 90% of MPs [and 80% of votes cast] were elected on manifestos pledging to deliver Brexit.
If every MP voted blindly on the manifesto presented by their front bench there would be no point to their existence. It perhaps suggests you don't understand our system of representative parliamentary democracy. It certainly didn't stop Brain of Britain Ian Duncan Smith and various other oddballs defying the party whip.
I didn't say they should be blind. I'm saying the Tweets implication that the ERG are the only ones who want Brexit to proceed is contradicted by the fact 90% of MPs were elected on a mandate to proceed with Brexit. It should be possible to find a majority from within that 90% with or without the ERG.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
If it is just a delay in settling the claim, then I guess I live with that. But suppose A50 revoked before 29/3. Now was it extended when the decision was formally adopted on 22/3 or has revoke meant that extension has never happened? This is a risk that I believe that I shouldn't have to suffer.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Please don't exaggerate, it undermines your contributions. UK law, (or any law of the 28 sovereign nations that make up the EU) is not subservient to EU law, only areas that are covered under treaty, and particularly those aligned to trade . Many of these we would still have to adhere to even if we crash out with no deal as long as we wish to sell stuff to the remaining 27
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
If it is just a delay in settling the claim, then I guess I live with that. But suppose A50 revoked before 29/3. Now was it extended when the decision was formally adopted on 22/3 or has revoke meant that extension has never happened? This is a risk that I believe that I shouldn't have to suffer.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Please don't exaggerate, it undermines your contributions. UK law, (or any law of the 28 sovereign nations that make up the EU) is not subservient to EU law, only areas that are covered under treaty, and particularly those aligned to trade . Many of these we would still have to adhere to even if we crash out with no deal as long as we wish to sell stuff to the remaining 27
I'd say membership of the EU is an area covered by EU treaty.
Betfair are refusing to suspend market 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended?' Note the rules say Will the deadline of 29-03-2019 23:59:59 CET under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be extended? Yes will be settled as a winner if the European Council unanimously agree to extend Article 50. There is conditional extension to 22 May but otherwise extended to 12 April. This has been formally adopted and there is press release saying so and I have repeatedly sent this to betfair help. Can people here see and agree with Betfair's logic or are they being silly?
Parliament still needs to ratify the Statutory Instrument to change the date.
True but wording of claim is about EU agreeing extension not about whether UK chooses to use the extension or not. So not relevant in my opinion.
Indeed on that point it has already been settled but then the question is also will it be extended and given the law requires the SI to pass too it seems safer to delay paying out until the SI passes. Once the SI passes that's it.
If it is just a delay in settling the claim, then I guess I live with that. But suppose A50 revoked before 29/3. Now was it extended when the decision was formally adopted on 22/3 or has revoke meant that extension has never happened? This is a risk that I believe that I shouldn't have to suffer.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Please don't exaggerate, it undermines your contributions. UK law, (or any law of the 28 sovereign nations that make up the EU) is not subservient to EU law, only areas that are covered under treaty, and particularly those aligned to trade . Many of these we would still have to adhere to even if we crash out with no deal as long as we wish to sell stuff to the remaining 27
Our membership of the EU - and hence our exit date, is covered by treaty.
If the indicative votes are effectively a secret ballot how will the whips whip?
I think that's the point. Although I disagree with the principle that legislators can vote on things in secret. It's a procedure that the EU parliament is quite keen on.
Please don't exaggerate, it undermines your contributions. UK law, (or any law of the 28 sovereign nations that make up the EU) is not subservient to EU law, only areas that are covered under treaty, and particularly those aligned to trade . Many of these we would still have to adhere to even if we crash out with no deal as long as we wish to sell stuff to the remaining 27
I'd say membership of the EU is an area covered by EU treaty.
It is because of our 1972 Act. If that is repealed we're out. Parliament is supreme and its derogation of supremacy in that Act would no long be there.
The dossier Blair presented to Parliament didn't stand up to scrutiny, but then, it wasn't scrutinised. To me it seemed a mish-mash of unrelated facts, but I wondered if Blair had more information that he couldn't present for security reasons. You don't like to think your PM is deliberately lying.
He was, of course, but I was only in my early fifties (as you were) so more susceptible to thinking the best of politicians. Even then, I didn't totally trust him. Now, I would have dismissed his so-called dossier straight away.
Hence the reason why I assumed Brexit would never happen. With the help of the EU, delay things as much as possible, refuse to discuss trade and focus on processes instead, and try to piss the electorate off so much that they scream for release, any release. As expected, it's been almost Blair-esque.
With a following wind, they can even risk revocation with a little more softening up. A referendum is still too risky. Even funnier is the MPs acting precious when they were called out on this.
Charlie K may have been a piss-pot, but he had judgement.
If the indicative votes are effectively a secret ballot how will the whips whip?
I think that's the point. Although I disagree with the principle that legislators can vote on things in secret. It's a procedure that the EU parliament is quite keen on.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
No.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and (b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
If the indicative votes are effectively a secret ballot how will the whips whip?
I think that's the point. Although I disagree with the principle that legislators can vote on things in secret. It's a procedure that the EU parliament is quite keen on.
For me the issues are (i) accountability, but also (ii) if an MP votes for (say) revoke in a secret ballot how can the 'process' be sure that the same MP will vote the same way when it isn't a secret ballot (ie when the legislation comes before the House)?
If the indicative votes are effectively a secret ballot how will the whips whip?
I think that's the point. Although I disagree with the principle that legislators can vote on things in secret. It's a procedure that the EU parliament is quite keen on.
For me the issues are (i) accountability, but also (ii) if an MP votes for (say) revoke in a secret ballot how can the 'process' be sure that the same MP will vote the same way when it isn't a secret ballot (ie when the legislation comes before the House)?
Makes you wonder why they haven't done this before, doesn't it...
Previously, local Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were only allowed to raise this by a maximum of £12. But, in December, the government increased the limit and almost every force opted for the new maximum.
Well there's a surprise.
The only 'council' running a police force now is the City of London police.
Police precepts are set by police and crime commissioners and certain elected Mayors (e.g Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham).
The Home office settlement for policing included the assumption that all forces raise their precept by £24 in their calculations and they have all followed the Home Secretary's proposals - essentially another 'local choice' forced on them by central government!
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
No.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and (b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
No.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and (b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
No.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and (b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
That confirms what I wrote. A Statutory Instrument may amend the definition, however if the statutory instrument fails to pass Parliament [it will but hypothetically] then exit day will remain as it is and the 1972 Act is repealed automatically.
If the indicative votes are effectively a secret ballot how will the whips whip?
I think that's the point. Although I disagree with the principle that legislators can vote on things in secret. It's a procedure that the EU parliament is quite keen on.
For me the issues are (i) accountability, but also (ii) if an MP votes for (say) revoke in a secret ballot how can the 'process' be sure that the same MP will vote the same way when it isn't a secret ballot (ie when the legislation comes before the House)?
Makes you wonder why they haven't done this before, doesn't it...
I understood that whilst filling in the paper would be secret, afterwards all the results including how people voted would be published? Although we wont know for sure for another hour, when the proposal is tabled.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
No.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and (b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
No.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and (b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
I don't agree. The Minister "may" by regulation alter the exit day, but clearly it stays the same if such regulations are not duly made.
May already effectively told the HoC yesterday that that will happen. I might be wrong but it's a Minister of the Crown not the HoC that make the change.
I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
No.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and (b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
The ONS released the latest electorate figures last week showing why we badly need a boundary review. I have excluded the special island seats.
Top 20 England
Milton Keynes South 92,000 North West Cambridgeshire 91,121 Sleaford and North Hykeham 90,874 West Ham 90,048 South Northamptonshire 88,039 Milton Keynes North 87,654 Ashford 87,102 North East Bedfordshire 86,990 Banbury 86,431 Bury St Edmunds 86,374 Wantage 86,243 Manchester Central 86,233 Folkestone and Hythe 85,855 Bermondsey and Old Southwark 85,283 Croydon North 85,196 Warrington South 84,741 Poplar and Limehouse 84,355 East Devon 84,195 Mid Bedfordshire 84,055 South East Cambridgeshire 83,958
Bottom 20 England
Aldridge-Brownhills 59,382 Putney 59,382 Wolverhampton North East 59,367 Hexham 59,298 Nottingham East 58,930 Cities of London and Westminster 58,639 Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle 58,638 Leeds North West 58,553 Middlesbrough 58,518 Northampton North 58,398 Kensington 57,627 Berwick-upon-Tweed 57,544 Wolverhampton South West 57,478 Wirral South 56,350 Stoke-on-Trent Central 55,898 Preston 55,512 Blackpool South 55,510 Newcastle upon Tyne East 55,459 Wirral West 54,249 Newcastle upon Tyne Central 53,362
The low electorates for Kensington and Westminster back up the comment downthread about the super rich moving in.
Top 5 Scotland
Linlithgow and East Falkirk 85,436 Falkirk 82,830 Livingston 80,487 East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow 78,606 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 78,164
Bottom 5 Scotland
Aberdeen North 58,620 North East Fife 57,143 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 53,220 Glasgow North 52,059 Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross 46,407
Top 3 Wales
Cardiff South and Penarth 74,000 Vale of Glamorgan 73,510 Cardiff North 64,953
I agree that seats listed with 85,000 or 40,000 voters are a problem. I see no reason for reorganising Shropshire, Herefordshire or Worcestershire as I don't think any seats in these three counties are particularly large or small. Why impose 'solutions' from the centre that people don't really see the need for?
The 'problem seats' seem to be fast-growing rural ones SE of the Severn-Wash line and declining urban ones NW of it. The problem in the above three W Midlands counties is just that nearly all MPs are Tory although only 45-50% of votes are Tory. Under PR, the MPs would be ~45% Tory, 55% others and I could e-mail someone who isn't a Brexit-loon.
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
No.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and (b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
I don't agree. The Minister "may" by regulation alter the exit day, but clearly it stays the same if such regulations are not duly made.
May already effectively told the HoC yesterday that that will happen. I might be wrong but it's a Minister of the Crown not the HoC that make the change.
I think "by regulations" means SI, which needs to be voted on.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/26/wont-let-pm-remainer-horde-parliament-bully-us-backing-toxic/
"We won't let the PM or the Remainer horde in Parliament bully us into backing a toxic Brexit deal" Sammy Wilson
It's quite common for Governments and politicians generally to bend the truth, and routine to be selective in what they emphasise. Actual lying and deliberate plotting to undermine justice are IMO mercifully rare.
Nobody should be surprised by this.
By contrast, in the local elections in both 2016 and 2017, Labour outperformed their showing in the polls at the time, which should've indicated the aggressive changes the pollsters had made to their methodology after the 2015 general election had gone too far.
But even an embarrassing Brexiteer climbdown can't saved the PM's deal
Disappointingly, a number of pro-Brexit Conservative MPs, including most notably Jacob Rees-Mogg, are now apparently considering switching to backing May’s deal. That won’t make her deal pass. Even if every pro-Brexit MP had switched to backing May’s deal at the second vote, it would still have been defeated by its pro-Remain opponents. And since that time, the pro-Remain Conservative rebels’ ranks have expanded.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/26/disappointing-mps-like-jacob-rees-mogg-lack-nerve-see-brexit/
You think the EU will grant that?
Feck it, make gay marriage compulsory in NI
https://twitter.com/moto26261/status/1110539604715864067
https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1110548017915019270
If so then that leaves the ERG in a quandary; If they vote MV3 down, they risk losing brexit, if they help MV3 pass then some will surely lose their seats within the next six weeks?
https://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/news/unitary-authority-plan-for-nottinghamshire-at-an-end-9056635/
Since in 3 days time we know for certain either way its not long you're waiting.
I once arrived in Dublin from London and had to join a massive queue at passport control as two flights had just arrived from the US and we were merged. It took me nearly an hour to clear passport control - in the CTA. I went to Singapore a couple of weeks later and got through passport control in 30 seconds (including fingerprints and stamping my landing card).
So much for the CTA!
If yes then well call the DUP's bluff.
All irrelevant as MV3 is still going down by 100 votes.
No, since there is still an executive. All the WA needs is for a motion to pass.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/25/macron-under-fire-for-patronising-injured-elderly-gilets-jaunes-protester
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-139703/Just-45-minutes-attack.html
The "defence" that this confused two "facts" (range of Iraqi strategic weapons with alleged preparedness of much shorter range tactical battlefield chemical weapons) was a mis-interpretation the government was happy to let stand. It was reported that Campbell was happy with this confusion.
AFAIK the Lords aren't involved - the UK bit is a statutory instrument so the minister decrees it and the Commons rubber-stamp it.
The only argument flowing the other way (for Labour leavers) is that of 'last chance'. But May's deal is an option within Wednesday's exercise and a WA will be needed for most of the indicative options. So a vote this week wouldn't in reality be a last chance anyway.
Previously, local Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were only allowed to raise this by a maximum of £12.
But, in December, the government increased the limit and almost every force opted for the new maximum.
Well there's a surprise.
Must be odds on now.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-s-Italian-advance-threatens-EU-unity
After Trieste, I wonder if China will try a port deal with Szczecin...
Only if its polygamous....
Con take Bootle, LDs take Boston, Lab take Harborough, all possible, albeit unlikely.
Indeed Lord Buckethead in Parliament too.
If May's Deal were to top the poll on indicative voting, would Bercow rule it out of order?
I guess I am a bit narked by befair's lack of clear explanation: First they said agreement had been announced but decision not agreed. Press release I sent them was clear there was political agreement on 21st followed by being adopted formalising the agreement on 22nd. Then they send stuff from before the agreement was reached saying it was conditional on a vote in parliament. I explained that it had changed and agreement was for extension whether parliament votes for May's deal or not and since then they have not replied to further enquiry.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
"Even Now, Brexit Remains Impossible to Understand"
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/03/brexit-international-audience-uk/585670/
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1107290294368784384?s=19
Oh, the books that are going to be written on this!
I presume Shippers will get at least two if not three more out of it before we're done.
Will we know how each MP votes like we do in the lobbies or is it a secret ballot?
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1110512425164513280
The dossier Blair presented to Parliament didn't stand up to scrutiny, but then, it wasn't scrutinised. To me it seemed a mish-mash of unrelated facts, but I wondered if Blair had more information that he couldn't present for security reasons. You don't like to think your PM is deliberately lying.
He was, of course, but I was only in my early fifties (as you were) so more susceptible to thinking the best of politicians. Even then, I didn't totally trust him. Now, I would have dismissed his so-called dossier straight away.
Hence the reason why I assumed Brexit would never happen. With the help of the EU, delay things as much as possible, refuse to discuss trade and focus on processes instead, and try to piss the electorate off so much that they scream for release, any release. As expected, it's been almost Blair-esque.
With a following wind, they can even risk revocation with a little more softening up. A referendum is still too risky. Even funnier is the MPs acting precious when they were called out on this.
Charlie K may have been a piss-pot, but he had judgement.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
Here's a link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/pdfs/ukpga_20180016_en.pdf
Police precepts are set by police and crime commissioners and certain elected Mayors (e.g Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham).
The Home office settlement for policing included the assumption that all forces raise their precept by £24 in their calculations and they have all followed the Home Secretary's proposals - essentially another 'local choice' forced on them by central government!
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1110556089110720519
The 'problem seats' seem to be fast-growing rural ones SE of the Severn-Wash line and declining urban ones NW of it. The problem in the above three W Midlands counties is just that nearly all MPs are Tory although only 45-50% of votes are Tory. Under PR, the MPs would be ~45% Tory, 55% others and I could e-mail someone who isn't a Brexit-loon.