Sounds as though the brick wall has finally managed to knock some sense into their heads.
Only if it leads to them seeking to end the limbo by means of taking action toward another outcome. From that all it seems is that that particular person admits they cannot get what they want, but not that they are willing to take action to prevent a worst case scenario.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
And that there would be 5 million unemployed blah blah.
Our job as the electorate is to make the judgement as to what value we place on what we're told at elections.
For what it's worth I think us 'holding all the cards' had some credence back then. Quite how the negotiations have reduced us now to bluffing on a '5 high' hand escapes me.
We voted for a steak dinner and the chef was replaced by a vegetarian.
Nonetheless she served you a nice steak with all the trimmings which you then decided you didn't want after all.
I think the point is that Leavers, like myself, should have known that we weren't going to get the meal we desired at this particular restaurant, because, whoever the chef was, they didn't want to make it.
Or, if Coldplay are your house band and you get to choose the set list , don't ask them to play Anarchy in the UK then complain it doesn't sound like the Sex Pistols
Your Sex Pistols/Coldplay analogy is apposite. The Sex Pistols no longer exist, and aren't as good as you remember them anyway. Half the people at your party weren't even alive when they were famous, and can't understand why you want to listen to this kind of tuneless noise. And Coldplay, while boring, are the kind of band that are only really hated by angry people who have a deep need to hate something. In other words, just let Coldplay entertain your guests and focus your energy on making sure everyone's glass is full and you don't burn the sausage rolls.
Any tweet or comment where the person isn't brave enough to go on the record should be ignored - the words of a non entity.
I disagree with you on much, but at this point in the debate I think that is a fair enough comment. No reason to be shy anymore, admit what you think openly.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
If that happened I think Parliament would vote to revoke.
But I doubt the EU will force the UK into that position.
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
It doesn't have to be in two days, assuming an extension is granted.
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
The EU announces tonight that it's not giving an extension. General panic. May brings back her deal to parliament tomorrow, the remainers move an amendment, accepted by Bercow, to revoke. The amendment carries. With industry, the city etc etc screaming blue murder and sterling falling through the floor May says no, f*ck you parliament, I'm going over the cliff.
Or she bows to the will of parliament and revokes.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
The EU announces tonight that it's not giving an extension. General panic. May brings back her deal to parliament tomorrow, the remainers move an amendment, accepted by Bercow, to revoke. The amendment carries. With industry, the city etc etc screaming blue murder and sterling falling through the floor May says no, f*ck you parliament, I'm going over the cliff.
Or she bows to the will of parliament and revokes.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
The EU announces tonight that it's not giving an extension. General panic. May brings back her deal to parliament tomorrow, the remainers move an amendment, accepted by Bercow, to revoke. The amendment carries. With industry, the city etc etc screaming blue murder and sterling falling through the floor May says no, f*ck you parliament, I'm going over the cliff.
Or she bows to the will of parliament and revokes.
There is only one outcome in that scenario.
And you think there is a majority in Parliament for revoke?
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
It doesn't have to be in two days, assuming an extension is granted.
The original comment was:
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
And that there would be 5 million unemployed blah blah.
Our job as the electorate is to make the judgement as to what value we place on what we're told at elections.
For what it's worth I think us 'holding all the cards' had some credence back then. Quite how the negotiations have reduced us now to bluffing on a '5 high' hand escapes me.
We voted for a steak dinner and the chef was replaced by a vegetarian.
Nonetheless she served you a nice steak with all the trimmings which you then decided you didn't want after all.
I think the point is that Leavers, like myself, should have known that we weren't going to get the meal we desired at this particular restaurant, because, whoever the chef was, they didn't want to make it.
Or, if Coldplay are your house band and you get to choose the set list , don't ask them to play Anarchy in the UK then complain it doesn't sound like the Sex Pistols
An alternative analogy is that you all agreed to go out for a meal by majority vote, and then couldn't agree on the restaurant after you set out, and are still wandering around in the cold.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
The EU announces tonight that it's not giving an extension. General panic. May brings back her deal to parliament tomorrow, the remainers move an amendment, accepted by Bercow, to revoke. The amendment carries. With industry, the city etc etc screaming blue murder and sterling falling through the floor May says no, f*ck you parliament, I'm going over the cliff.
Or she bows to the will of parliament and revokes.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
The EU announces tonight that it's not giving an extension. General panic. May brings back her deal to parliament tomorrow, the remainers move an amendment, accepted by Bercow, to revoke. The amendment carries. With industry, the city etc etc screaming blue murder and sterling falling through the floor May says no, f*ck you parliament, I'm going over the cliff.
Or she bows to the will of parliament and revokes.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
As long as we don't take part in the EU elections. Though our reputation around the world could hardly be lower if we had the elections you can be sure the big winners would be Tommy Robinson's and other right wing nutters and then our reputation would be trashed for good
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.
It’s surprising that no-one has yet tried to get the Supreme Court to rule definitively on this issue.
It must be possible that someone might seek an injunction, if any method other than primary legislation appears to be about to be used to send a revocation notice to the EU. Something that could cause chaos given the timescales involved.
Well this is disappointing, Virgin is my favourite train company.
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson says his train business could disappear from the UK after its partner Stagecoach was barred from three rail franchise bids.
Sir Richard, whose Virgin Trains is 49% owned by Stagecoach, said he was "devastated" by the disqualification.
The Department for Transport (DfT) disallowed the bids because they did not meet pensions rules.
Virgin was bidding to renew the West Coast franchise in partnership with Stagecoach and France's SNCF.
Stagecoach had also put in for the East Midlands and South Eastern franchises, both of which have been rejected.
In a blog on Virgin's corporate website, Sir Richard said Virgin Trains "could be gone from the UK in November".
Hurrah! The Virgin brand cheapens everything it touches.
Everyone will be whores with cheering when after 23 miserable years they finally go.
They are the country's best ranked long distance train company.
Something like a 90% plus satisfaction rating.
Whenever we use Virgin West Coast it is usually as we are flying from Heathrow and their service is excellent. We avail ourselves of their assisted service whereby we are met at the train and taken by buggy to the taxis at Euston. When we return there is a dedicated phone at the taxi arrival point and they take us to the train, helping us with our bags. At our age it is much appreciated and free
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
The EU announces tonight that it's not giving an extension. General panic. May brings back her deal to parliament tomorrow, the remainers move an amendment, accepted by Bercow, to revoke. The amendment carries. With industry, the city etc etc screaming blue murder and sterling falling through the floor May says no, f*ck you parliament, I'm going over the cliff.
Or she bows to the will of parliament and revokes.
There is only one outcome in that scenario.
I don't know what she would do. In that scenario, I would invite the Commons to pass a VONC, and install a government that was committed to revoking.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
It doesn't have to be in two days, assuming an extension is granted.
The original comment was:
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Like most voters, I'd lost track. The original comment was correct-ish: it's possible though not probable.
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.
Interesting and covers the ground well. Although his repeat of the idiotic claims about people dying because of shortage of medicines does kind of undermine any claims to reason on the part of the author.
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.
It’s surprising that no-one has yet tried to get the Supreme Court to rule definitively on this issue.
It must be possible that someone might seek an injunction, if any method other than primary legislation appears to be about to be used to send a revocation notice to the EU. Something that could cause chaos given the timescales involved.
I think this runs into the same problem of other constitutional issues that both the ECJ and Supreme Court have been asked to reflect on, which is that generally they refuse to rule on hypotheticals. Until such time as someone actually does something so they have the facts in front of them to rule on, the higher courts generally try to stay away from ruling on principles.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
The EU announces tonight that it's not giving an extension. General panic. May brings back her deal to parliament tomorrow, the remainers move an amendment, accepted by Bercow, to revoke. The amendment carries. With industry, the city etc etc screaming blue murder and sterling falling through the floor May says no, f*ck you parliament, I'm going over the cliff.
Or she bows to the will of parliament and revokes.
There is only one outcome in that scenario.
And you think there is a majority in Parliament for revoke?
If the choice is revoke or no deal then parliament would revoke. Labour has been careful not to rule it out, the smaller parties are in favour and enough Tories would go for it to ensure it would carry.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
It doesn't have to be in two days, assuming an extension is granted.
The original comment was:
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
It doesn't have to be in two days, assuming an extension is granted.
The original comment was:
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
53 hours now, and six minutes.
Tick, tock...
I like to look at it as 5 years, 53 hours, and six minutes until we rejoin the EU.
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.
Interesting and covers the ground well. Although his repeat of the idiotic claims about people dying because of shortage of medicines does kind of undermine any claims to reason on the part of the author.
Well, yes.
It looks to me as though it would be really difficult for parliament to force a revocation if the PM didn't want to revoke. If there were a non-binding but clear vote by parliament in favour, we'd have a full-blown constitutional crisis, against a ticking clock.
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.
Interesting and covers the ground well. Although his repeat of the idiotic claims about people dying because of shortage of medicines does kind of undermine any claims to reason on the part of the author.
His views on medicine shortages are neither here nor there, it not being his area of expertise. The rest is quite plausible.
Given the extreme shortage of time, the only realistic options are the PM doing it, or a majority vote in the Commons (which would be of uncertain effect). Of course the Commons could also vote to request a short extension in order to expedite revocation, which might or might not be acceded to by the EU (but again, time constraints).
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
As long as we don't take part in the EU elections. Though our reputation around the world could hardly be lower if we had the elections you can be sure the big winners would be Tommy Robinson's and other right wing nutters and then our reputation would be trashed for good
The BNP won seats in the European Parliament in the past. It was either 2004 or 2009 if my memory serves me right.
Personally I will vote Change UK or Lib Dem if there are European elections in the UK. I don't think the UK has suffered a loss of power as yet. If we Brexit, we will be a diminished country on the international stage but some in the UK would welcome that scenario. Nations flux over time in international reputation, given the yellow vest protests going on in France is far from an ideal place. All countries have problems, some are bigger than others! (Trump)
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
In which case, Parliament will revoke.
How?
VONC the government, hold a GE, have a pro-revoke party win - all by Friday?
The WDA is dead, so the only choice parliament would have is no deal or revoke. It has voted overwhelmingly against no deal on several occasions so........
Explain how 'Parliament' forces a 'Government' to do something it does not want to do. In two days.
It doesn't have to be in two days, assuming an extension is granted.
The original comment was:
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
53 hours now, and six minutes.
Tick, tock...
I like to look at it as 5 years, 53 hours, and six minutes until we rejoin the EU.
Something which would also be out of our hands, it being subject to EU approval.
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.
It’s surprising that no-one has yet tried to get the Supreme Court to rule definitively on this issue.
It must be possible that someone might seek an injunction, if any method other than primary legislation appears to be about to be used to send a revocation notice to the EU. Something that could cause chaos given the timescales involved.
I think this runs into the same problem of other constitutional issues that both the ECJ and Supreme Court have been asked to reflect on, which is that generally they refuse to rule on hypotheticals. Until such time as someone actually does something so they have the facts in front of them to rule on, the higher courts generally try to stay away from ruling on principles.
I have still not heard anyone give me a definitive answer on whether or not Parliament CAN revoke? Is revocation controlled by Parliament, the Executive, both? The EU already said a few weeks ago that there is only one official line of communication on these matters and that is through the PM. Surely until we are clear on that, whether Parliament votes to revoke or not (and I am not convinced they will as they will get the blame) is immaterial.
I don't think we have a definitive answer on that.
It’s surprising that no-one has yet tried to get the Supreme Court to rule definitively on this issue.
It must be possible that someone might seek an injunction, if any method other than primary legislation appears to be about to be used to send a revocation notice to the EU. Something that could cause chaos given the timescales involved.
I think this runs into the same problem of other constitutional issues that both the ECJ and Supreme Court have been asked to reflect on, which is that generally they refuse to rule on hypotheticals. Until such time as someone actually does something so they have the facts in front of them to rule on, the higher courts generally try to stay away from ruling on principles.
A good point about ruling on hypotheticals, but a legal challenge to a revocation order made at five minutes to midnight will cause the mother of all constitutional crises.
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
Well, the first of those statements was true enough.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
Someone vetoes the extension.
Which leaves revocation.
Theresa ain't going to revoke so we accidentally fall out.
Absolutely no chance we crash out with No Deal. You have been beating this drum for eons.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We will see who is right.
I hope you are right but one of the options under serious consideration tonight by the EU leaders is to refuse an extension beyond the EU elections (23rd May) and require the UK to do one of the following: WDA - no deal - revoke
It may just happen if the EU take that choice and it is a real possibility
As long as we don't take part in the EU elections. Though our reputation around the world could hardly be lower if we had the elections you can be sure the big winners would be Tommy Robinson's and other right wing nutters and then our reputation would be trashed for good
The BNP won seats in the European Parliament in the past. It was either 2004 or 2009 if my memory serves me right.
Personally I will vote Change UK or Lib Dem if there are European elections in the UK. I don't think the UK has suffered a loss of power as yet. If we Brexit, we will be a diminished country on the international stage but some in the UK would welcome that scenario. Nations flux over time in international reputation, given the yellow vest protests going on in France is in an idle place. All countries have problems, some are bigger than others! (Trump)
Sensible comment. There's plenty we are not panicking enough about, but that is not one of them.
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
Given the extreme shortage of time, the only realistic options are the PM doing it, or a majority vote in the Commons (which would be of uncertain effect). Of course the Commons could also vote to request a short extension in order to expedite revocation, which might or might not be acceded to by the EU (but again, time constraints).
It seems to me that the EU must have taken legal advice on this. I think that they would avoid doing something which could potentially trigger a major crisis through legal uncertainty, and that therefore they'll grant an extension tonight.
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
Launch window 22:35-00:32 GMT, although preparations appear to be behind schedule at the moment, so will likely be late in the window if it goes tonight.
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
The voters' choice is not transferable. IMHO, they need to agree a joint list, otherwise they'll find themselves losing out narrowly in almost every region.
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
Given the extreme shortage of time, the only realistic options are the PM doing it, or a majority vote in the Commons (which would be of uncertain effect). Of course the Commons could also vote to request a short extension in order to expedite revocation, which might or might not be acceded to by the EU (but again, time constraints).
It seems to me that the EU must have taken legal advice on this. I think that they would avoid doing something which could potentially trigger a major crisis through legal uncertainty, and that therefore they'll grant an extension tonight.
Bottom line it is just easier for them to grant an extension, less risky, even if it does not resolve matters.
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
Launch window 22:35-00:32 GMT, although preparations appear to be behind schedule at the moment, so will likely be late in the window if it goes tonight.
Given the extreme shortage of time, the only realistic options are the PM doing it, or a majority vote in the Commons (which would be of uncertain effect). Of course the Commons could also vote to request a short extension in order to expedite revocation, which might or might not be acceded to by the EU (but again, time constraints).
It seems to me that the EU must have taken legal advice on this. I think that they would avoid doing something which could potentially trigger a major crisis through legal uncertainty, and that therefore they'll grant an extension tonight.
Bottom line it is just easier for them to grant an extension, less risky, even if it does not resolve matters.
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
If the choice is revoke or no deal then parliament would revoke. Labour has been careful not to rule it out, the smaller parties are in favour and enough Tories would go for it to ensure it would carry.
I think it more likely that the deal is signed in that scenario.
If the choice is revoke or no deal then parliament would revoke. Labour has been careful not to rule it out, the smaller parties are in favour and enough Tories would go for it to ensure it would carry.
I think it more likely that the deal is signed in that scenario.
How do you figure? Some of the Labour 'potential' deal supporters would prefer revoke. Where do the votes to get the deal over the line come from?
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
The voters' choice is not transferable. IMHO, they need to agree a joint list, otherwise they'll find themselves losing out narrowly in almost every region.
Yes. Apart from the large London and SE England regions, they’ll likely both lose out if they stand against each other. Ditto with Brexit Party and UKIP - but with added animosity.
There’s probably only a handful of MEP seats guaranteed at this point - Hannan if he’s again #1 on the Con list for SE, whoever’s #1 on Lab list in London, and not an awful lot more.
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
The same problem exists for UKIP supporters because there will effectively be two parties, one led by Batten and one by Farage.
Well this is disappointing, Virgin is my favourite train company.
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson says his train business could disappear from the UK after its partner Stagecoach was barred from three rail franchise bids.
Sir Richard, whose Virgin Trains is 49% owned by Stagecoach, said he was "devastated" by the disqualification.
The Department for Transport (DfT) disallowed the bids because they did not meet pensions rules.
Virgin was bidding to renew the West Coast franchise in partnership with Stagecoach and France's SNCF.
Stagecoach had also put in for the East Midlands and South Eastern franchises, both of which have been rejected.
In a blog on Virgin's corporate website, Sir Richard said Virgin Trains "could be gone from the UK in November".
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
Launch window 22:35-00:32 GMT, although preparations appear to be behind schedule at the moment, so will likely be late in the window if it goes tonight.
Will try and stay awake here to watch at GMT+4, going to be a late night.
Thanks. Sadly I probably won't be able to watch it live as I'm utterly knackered - and it's only the third day of the Easter hols!
I'm going to be (more of) a gibbering wreck by the end of the hols ...
I have a bad feeling I’m gonna stay up until 4:30am and see the launch scrubbed with five minutes to go in the window. Maybe a couple of hours’ shut-eye now is a good idea!
I like that the french for, I presume, leave, is quitter, at least in this context. Makes what we did sound even worse. We didn't leave, we're quitters.
On the West Coast Mainline, I was a user of this service at various weekends from Coventry in the early 2000s. The replacement bus service was in play longer than Brexit
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
The same problem exists for UKIP supporters because there will effectively be two parties, one led by Batten and one by Farage.
The combined voted for UKIP/Brexit looks to be higher than that for Change/Lib Dems. A party which polls 10% overall will probably win a seat in every English region apart from the North East. A party which polls 8% will probably just fall short./
Well this is disappointing, Virgin is my favourite train company.
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson says his train business could disappear from the UK after its partner Stagecoach was barred from three rail franchise bids.
Sir Richard, whose Virgin Trains is 49% owned by Stagecoach, said he was "devastated" by the disqualification.
The Department for Transport (DfT) disallowed the bids because they did not meet pensions rules.
Virgin was bidding to renew the West Coast franchise in partnership with Stagecoach and France's SNCF.
Stagecoach had also put in for the East Midlands and South Eastern franchises, both of which have been rejected.
In a blog on Virgin's corporate website, Sir Richard said Virgin Trains "could be gone from the UK in November".
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
The same problem exists for UKIP supporters because there will effectively be two parties, one led by Batten and one by Farage.
In my opinion it doesn't really matter who wins the seats here, from a betting perspective, or from a discussion perspective the important conclusions will be drawn from the % each side of the B-word debate gets
Well this is disappointing, Virgin is my favourite train company.
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson says his train business could disappear from the UK after its partner Stagecoach was barred from three rail franchise bids.
Sir Richard, whose Virgin Trains is 49% owned by Stagecoach, said he was "devastated" by the disqualification.
The Department for Transport (DfT) disallowed the bids because they did not meet pensions rules.
Virgin was bidding to renew the West Coast franchise in partnership with Stagecoach and France's SNCF.
Stagecoach had also put in for the East Midlands and South Eastern franchises, both of which have been rejected.
In a blog on Virgin's corporate website, Sir Richard said Virgin Trains "could be gone from the UK in November".
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
1) I will clearly never make a theoretical physicist because despite asking in a couple of places no one has yet given me a clear explanation about why we see a halo rather than a ball of light. This is clearly a defect in me.
2) I can't get Muse out of my head.
I naively thought we were viewing the accretion disk face on (conservation of angular momentum causes infalling material to form a disk rather than a halo around the black hole). So the black bit in the middle is inside the event horizon where light cannot escape.
My understanding from a quick read of the paper is that we have a spinning Black Hole (Kerr) and the associated accretion disk outside the event horizon. What we are seeing is at the bottom of the picture are photons arising from the disc spinning towards us, and from the top photons from the disc rotating away from us. There is nothing coming to us direct from the black hole which is why it is black.
Well this is disappointing, Virgin is my favourite train company.
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson says his train business could disappear from the UK after its partner Stagecoach was barred from three rail franchise bids.
Sir Richard, whose Virgin Trains is 49% owned by Stagecoach, said he was "devastated" by the disqualification.
The Department for Transport (DfT) disallowed the bids because they did not meet pensions rules.
Virgin was bidding to renew the West Coast franchise in partnership with Stagecoach and France's SNCF.
Stagecoach had also put in for the East Midlands and South Eastern franchises, both of which have been rejected.
In a blog on Virgin's corporate website, Sir Richard said Virgin Trains "could be gone from the UK in November".
1) I will clearly never make a theoretical physicist because despite asking in a couple of places no one has yet given me a clear explanation about why we see a halo rather than a ball of light. This is clearly a defect in me.
2) I can't get Muse out of my head.
I naively thought we were viewing the accretion disk face on (conservation of angular momentum causes infalling material to form a disk rather than a halo around the black hole). So the black bit in the middle is inside the event horizon where light cannot escape.
My understanding from a quick read of the paper is that we have a spinning Black Hole (Kerr) and the associated accretion disk outside the event horizon. What we are seeing is at the bottom of the picture are photons arising from the disc spinning towards us, and from the top photons from the disc rotating away from us. There is nothing coming to us direct from the black hole which is why it is black.
My understanding of the maths is bit rusty from my university course 30 years ago.
There are other things working against long term housing prices:
1. London valuations are still extremely stretched 2. An ageing population needs less space. (Old people don't want large dusty houses to maintain) 3. Net migration will probably turn negative* 4. Birth rates are still below replacement level
* Yes, it's a gutsy call, but it's one I'm pretty confident about
Hmm, the ONS forecasts that the number of households in England will increase by 4.0 million (17%) over the next 25 years:
I predict that the number of households in the UK will flatten out in the early 2020s, before following the path of Italy and Japan (and others) and slowly declining from later in the decade.
This will not result in milk and honey for all. By contrast, it will result in the value of people's main asset depreciating. People will feel poorer, and unhappier.
"With Brexit eating the Tories up, any notion of how to address such modern issues as the state of local public services, the migration of consumer spending online or our awful public transport now seems to be beyond their collective grasp; by way of ideas, all they have to cling on to is the old ideal of the property-owning democracy, which has long since shut out people under 40, and thus proved to be not very democratic at all."
Is the line about under 40's and property true or the view from London transposed across the country?
It is ceasing to be the case. Rates of home ownership are starting to rise again, among people aged over 25. 750,000 people became first time buyers in the past two years.
Housing became unaffordable for loads of people, as property prices rose by 320% from 1996 to 2007. Outside London, and a few hotspots, they've barely moved since then.
Or, in the case of the northeast fallen by 7.1% between 2007 and 2017. Source ONS.
A chart might be more useful than looking relative to an arbitrary date. Sean did say it was starting to rise again, implying a more recent turnaround.
Those are "real" house prices (ie reduced to take account of inflation). This is one of those true-but-misleading things I bang on about, like the tyranny of percentages. HPC also has graphs for actual house prices, (sometimes called "nominal house prices"). I'm on my tablet so I can't post a link, but if you dig you can find them.
Ministers have refused to disclose the contents of a telegram sent to the prime minister three years after the Lockerbie bombing, claiming it would be harmful to Britain.
A message sent to John Major in 1991, containing information about the atrocity from an unnamed overseas government, is held at the UK National Archives at Kew, west London.
An application made by The Times to view it has been rejected on the basis that it would be damaging to national interests.
The cabinet office’s dismissal of the freedom of information request means the document will remain closed to the public until 2032 at the earliest. It has fuelled suggestions from campaigners that evidence relating to Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity is being concealed.
National Archive records confirm that Mr Major received a telegram relating to the Lockerbie bombing on November 15, 1991.
Freedom of information requests are meant to be ruled on within 20 working days. It took almost six months before ministers finally decided that the telegram could not be brought into the public domain.
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
There are other things working against long term housing prices:
1. London valuations are still extremely stretched 2. An ageing population needs less space. (Old people don't want large dusty houses to maintain) 3. Net migration will probably turn negative* 4. Birth rates are still below replacement level
* Yes, it's a gutsy call, but it's one I'm pretty confident about
Hmm, the ONS forecasts that the number of households in England will increase by 4.0 million (17%) over the next 25 years:
I predict that the number of households in the UK will flatten out in the early 2020s, before following the path of Italy and Japan (and others) and slowly declining from later in the decade.
This will not result in milk and honey for all. By contrast, it will result in the value of people's main asset depreciating. People will feel poorer, and unhappier.
You heard it here first.
If this happens it may have a disastrous effect on equity release companies. They give a guarantee that no-one who borrows from them will end up in negative equity.
"With Brexit eating the Tories up, any notion of how to address such modern issues as the state of local public services, the migration of consumer spending online or our awful public transport now seems to be beyond their collective grasp; by way of ideas, all they have to cling on to is the old ideal of the property-owning democracy, which has long since shut out people under 40, and thus proved to be not very democratic at all."
Whilst public transport is certainly something that needs active policy to manage, I'm not sure the government should be concerned with whether consumer shopping is online or not..
Even if it results in the death of the High Street?
You can't get a haircut, a pint of beer in the sun or a cooked meal on the internet.
Pedestrianise the high street, convert upper stories into flats and make them places for people to gather and socialise. If you want to buy a spanner - go online.
Exactly , I am in Hamelin at present , centre is pedestrianised , well kept , full of all sorts of shops large and small, cafes, restaurants , bars etc , and very busy. It can be done if we had any decent governement, councils , etc instead of donkeys pocketing fat pay cheques for squalor.
So...any rats about? Asking for a Piper friend of mine...
There are other things working against long term housing prices:
1. London valuations are still extremely stretched 2. An ageing population needs less space. (Old people don't want large dusty houses to maintain) 3. Net migration will probably turn negative* 4. Birth rates are still below replacement level
* Yes, it's a gutsy call, but it's one I'm pretty confident about
Hmm, the ONS forecasts that the number of households in England will increase by 4.0 million (17%) over the next 25 years:
I predict that the number of households in the UK will flatten out in the early 2020s, before following the path of Italy and Japan (and others) and slowly declining from later in the decade.
This will not result in milk and honey for all. By contrast, it will result in the value of people's main asset depreciating. People will feel poorer, and unhappier.
You heard it here first.
Given how many people are priced out of the housing market entirely at present I am afraid that I disagree with you entirely. Even as one of those who will see their main 'asset' depreciate substantially, this will be a very good thing for the country and for the population overall. I certainly don't feel richer if my house goes up in value. But then I see it as a place to live not a place to speculate on.
House prices need a massive readjustment downwards and doing it in the gradual way you describe due to stabilising and then falling population seems a very good answer to this issue.
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
TIG (I like the old name) claims to be interviewing for MEP candidates this week, and said it had received a lot of applications including several former MPs and MEPs from other parties. Quite how it got these applications is a mystery, since I have not seen any advert or request for nominations and there is nothing about it on their website. Perhaps people are so keen that they have been volunteering?
Sounds as though the brick wall has finally managed to knock some sense into their heads.
Not really. They’re still writing letters and making demands. If it wasn’t so serious it would be pathetic. It’s clear they genuinely think they’re popular and can’t understand why they’re a laughing stock.
Ministers have refused to disclose the contents of a telegram sent to the prime minister three years after the Lockerbie bombing, claiming it would be harmful to Britain.
A message sent to John Major in 1991, containing information about the atrocity from an unnamed overseas government, is held at the UK National Archives at Kew, west London.
An application made by The Times to view it has been rejected on the basis that it would be damaging to national interests.
The cabinet office’s dismissal of the freedom of information request means the document will remain closed to the public until 2032 at the earliest. It has fuelled suggestions from campaigners that evidence relating to Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity is being concealed.
National Archive records confirm that Mr Major received a telegram relating to the Lockerbie bombing on November 15, 1991.
Freedom of information requests are meant to be ruled on within 20 working days. It took almost six months before ministers finally decided that the telegram could not be brought into the public domain.
"Sir Richard Branson 'devastated' as Virgin Trains could disappear The businessman said he was 'baffled' after the government disqualified a Virgin venture from its West Coast mainline bid."
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
TIG (I like the old name) claims to be interviewing for MEP candidates this week, and said it had received a lot of applications including several former MPs and MEPs from other parties. Quite how it got these applications is a mystery, since I have not seen any advert or request for nominations and there is nothing about it on their website. Perhaps people are so keen that they have been volunteering?
If the EU announced it was deadset against an extension, then I think the clock would run out. Mrs May would rather No Deal than Revoke, and she is right to be of that mind. (Even though I personally think that there would be nasty consequences to that.)
But I can't see the EU actively choosing No Deal in that way. Yes, yes, it always only takes one to veto. But, the Irish would be screaming blue murder, and many other countries would also be against it. With economic numbers in the Eurozone heading southwards again, who wants to be the leader who chooses to jump off the cliff?
So, they'd huff and they'd puff, and they'd threaten, but they'd still end up granting the extension.
Well this is disappointing, Virgin is my favourite train company.
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson says his train business could disappear from the UK after its partner Stagecoach was barred from three rail franchise bids.
Sir Richard, whose Virgin Trains is 49% owned by Stagecoach, said he was "devastated" by the disqualification.
The Department for Transport (DfT) disallowed the bids because they did not meet pensions rules.
Virgin was bidding to renew the West Coast franchise in partnership with Stagecoach and France's SNCF.
Stagecoach had also put in for the East Midlands and South Eastern franchises, both of which have been rejected.
In a blog on Virgin's corporate website, Sir Richard said Virgin Trains "could be gone from the UK in November".
Hurrah! The Virgin brand cheapens everything it touches.
Hmph. I spend almost as much time on trains as Sunil (in fact I'm on one now!) and Virgin have advantages and disadvantages. The trains are reasonably modern and comfortable. But they are chronically overcrowded and they charge for internet. They also have seats where the "lip" of the seat digs into the underside of your thighs behind your knees, which is a vascular accident waiting to happen on long journeys.
If the Euro elections go ahead what should Change UK and the Lib Dems do? If they both put up lists there is the danger that neither will win seats. There is already chat going on about alternatives. It seems to me there are two. The first is to allocate a region to one party - thus Change UK could take London and the Lib Dems the South East. If the voters' choice was transferable that could mean 2 seats for each, and certainly one. The second is to run a joint list with zipping i.e. Change UK No 1 in London and Lib Dem number 2; and vice versa in the South East. The main problem with this is to convince the Electoral Commission to agree. I assume they would have a register a party name (The Remain Party?). The Lib Dems have already started their candidate selection procedure. Have Change UK even a system in place? Another intriguing question is whether they will allow a dual mandate. Could Anna Soubry stand in East Midlands or Chuka Umuna in London?
TIG (I like the old name) claims to be interviewing for MEP candidates this week, and said it had received a lot of applications including several former MPs and MEPs from other parties. Quite how it got these applications is a mystery, since I have not seen any advert or request for nominations and there is nothing about it on their website. Perhaps people are so keen that they have been volunteering?
Or perhaps they're just asking their mates?
Black mark if so.
Maybe they'll hold open primaries then refuse to install the successful candidates
Mr. Taxman, the electorate was told pre-vote that its decision would be final and would be implemented, and, post-vote, MPs voted overwhelmingly to respect that and trigger Article 50.
Saying "It was all just pretend" now is as credible as wandering into a Tunisian wreath-laying ceremony and claiming you were "present but not involved".
The electorate was also told No Deal wouldn't happen, we held all the cards etc.
And that there would be 5 million unemployed blah blah.
Our job as the electorate is to make the judgement as to what value we place on what we're told at elections.
For what it's worth I think us 'holding all the cards' had some credence back then. Quite how the negotiations have reduced us now to bluffing on a '5 high' hand escapes me.
We voted for a steak dinner and the chef was replaced by a vegetarian.
Nonetheless she served you a nice steak with all the trimmings which you then decided you didn't want after all.
I think the point is that Leavers, like myself, should have known that we weren't going to get the meal we desired at this particular restaurant, because, whoever the chef was, they didn't want to make it.
Or, if Coldplay are your house band and you get to choose the set list , don't ask them to play Anarchy in the UK then complain it doesn't sound like the Sex Pistols
Your Sex Pistols/Coldplay analogy is apposite. The Sex Pistols no longer exist, and aren't as good as you remember them anyway. Half the people at your party weren't even alive when they were famous, and can't understand why you want to listen to this kind of tuneless noise. And Coldplay, while boring, are the kind of band that are only really hated by angry people who have a deep need to hate something. In other words, just let Coldplay entertain your guests and focus your energy on making sure everyone's glass is full and you don't burn the sausage rolls.
Yeah, but Coldplay are a bunch of c*nts, who try to be Radiohead and fail.
Ministers have refused to disclose the contents of a telegram sent to the prime minister three years after the Lockerbie bombing, claiming it would be harmful to Britain.
A message sent to John Major in 1991, containing information about the atrocity from an unnamed overseas government, is held at the UK National Archives at Kew, west London.
An application made by The Times to view it has been rejected on the basis that it would be damaging to national interests.
The cabinet office’s dismissal of the freedom of information request means the document will remain closed to the public until 2032 at the earliest. It has fuelled suggestions from campaigners that evidence relating to Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity is being concealed.
National Archive records confirm that Mr Major received a telegram relating to the Lockerbie bombing on November 15, 1991.
Freedom of information requests are meant to be ruled on within 20 working days. It took almost six months before ministers finally decided that the telegram could not be brought into the public domain.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Squawka/status/1115754815508889600
https://twitter.com/Squawka/status/1115992632243695621
The question is considered here:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/26/we-can-and-should-revoke-article-50-heres-how-to-do-it/
Or she bows to the will of parliament and revokes.
There is only one outcome in that scenario.
I think we're 54 and a half hours away from No Deal.
It must be possible that someone might seek an injunction, if any method other than primary legislation appears to be about to be used to send a revocation notice to the EU. Something that could cause chaos given the timescales involved.
Also Colwyn Bay to Euston in 3 hours is quick
The original comment was correct-ish: it's possible though not probable.
Tick, tock...
It looks to me as though it would be really difficult for parliament to force a revocation if the PM didn't want to revoke. If there were a non-binding but clear vote by parliament in favour, we'd have a full-blown constitutional crisis, against a ticking clock.
The rest is quite plausible.
Given the extreme shortage of time, the only realistic options are the PM doing it, or a majority vote in the Commons (which would be of uncertain effect).
Of course the Commons could also vote to request a short extension in order to expedite revocation, which might or might not be acceded to by the EU (but again, time constraints).
Personally I will vote Change UK or Lib Dem if there are European elections in the UK. I don't think the UK has suffered a loss of power as yet. If we Brexit, we will be a diminished country on the international stage but some in the UK would welcome that scenario. Nations flux over time in international reputation, given the yellow vest protests going on in France is far from an ideal place. All countries have problems, some are bigger than others! (Trump)
Time to stock up on popcorn! 🍿
Sometime this evening (I think around 23.30) SpaceX is going to attempt only their second sever Falcon Heavy launch, with the centre core landing on a barge at sea and the two side cores landing back on land.
It should be spectacular, whatever happens. There should be a livestream at spacex.com.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/blog/2019/04/09/spacex-delays-falcon-heavy-launch/
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/04/10/live-coverage-spacexs-upgraded-falcon-heavy-set-for-launch-wednesday/
Will try and stay awake here to watch at GMT+4, going to be a late night.
Some might say Proverbs 26:11 would be more apt.
I'm going to be (more of) a gibbering wreck by the end of the hols ...
There’s probably only a handful of MEP seats guaranteed at this point - Hannan if he’s again #1 on the Con list for SE, whoever’s #1 on Lab list in London, and not an awful lot more.
A50 revoked: 30% (anytime)
EU ref 2019 : 34%
No deal 2019: 13%
MV pass 2019: 64% (thin)
The replacement bus service was in play longer than Brexit
I travelled on some Mark 3 stock not that long ago, and the standard of comfort by comparison was unbelievable.
Perhaps Brexit is getting to all of us...
They've never wanted us in the EC/EU in the first place.
Probably still sore about Azincourt and Operation Neptune.
I predict that the number of households in the UK will flatten out in the early 2020s, before following the path of Italy and Japan (and others) and slowly declining from later in the decade.
This will not result in milk and honey for all. By contrast, it will result in the value of people's main asset depreciating. People will feel poorer, and unhappier.
You heard it here first.
Ministers have refused to disclose the contents of a telegram sent to the prime minister three years after the Lockerbie bombing, claiming it would be harmful to Britain.
A message sent to John Major in 1991, containing information about the atrocity from an unnamed overseas government, is held at the UK National Archives at Kew, west London.
An application made by The Times to view it has been rejected on the basis that it would be damaging to national interests.
The cabinet office’s dismissal of the freedom of information request means the document will remain closed to the public until 2032 at the earliest. It has fuelled suggestions from campaigners that evidence relating to Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity is being concealed.
National Archive records confirm that Mr Major received a telegram relating to the Lockerbie bombing on November 15, 1991.
Freedom of information requests are meant to be ruled on within 20 working days. It took almost six months before ministers finally decided that the telegram could not be brought into the public domain.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lockerbie-telegram-must-remain-sealed-until-2032-9thwr2bsh
House prices need a massive readjustment downwards and doing it in the gradual way you describe due to stabilising and then falling population seems a very good answer to this issue.
The businessman said he was 'baffled' after the government disqualified a Virgin venture from its West Coast mainline bid."
https://news.sky.com/story/east-midlands-rail-franchise-awarded-after-stagecoach-disqualified-11689381
Black mark if so.
But I can't see the EU actively choosing No Deal in that way. Yes, yes, it always only takes one to veto. But, the Irish would be screaming blue murder, and many other countries would also be against it. With economic numbers in the Eurozone heading southwards again, who wants to be the leader who chooses to jump off the cliff?
So, they'd huff and they'd puff, and they'd threaten, but they'd still end up granting the extension.