If we have a general election I predict the Brexit Party will win zero seats.
Brave and interesting. I suppose BXP might not have any candidates. It can be argued that Farage is currently threatening that his party will stand in order to concentrate the Tory Party's mind, and if the latter gets its act together, Brexitwise, he'll stand his troops down.
Certainly their chances are low if they do stand, if the Right is split between themselves and a Johnson-led Hard-Brexit Tory Party. It then depends on whether Farage can convince Hard Brexiters that the Tories are a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think Farage would have plenty of evidence for this, and surely enough to persuade 15% to vote for him, and pick up a few seats, at least.
I think there's room for doubt. Verstappen took the racing line. That said, he didn't leave any room.
But I think there's a danger that F1 rules and decision-makers think a bland DRS pass is normal, and a racing pass in a corner is something that, fairly often, should be punished.
They never should've given Vettel a penalty. But doing so makes it harder to avoid giving Verstappen one.
I think there's room for doubt. Verstappen took the racing line. That said, he didn't leave any room.
But I think there's a danger that F1 rules and decision-makers think a bland DRS pass is normal, and a racing pass in a corner is something that, fairly often, should be punished.
They never should've given Vettel a penalty. But doing so makes it harder to avoid giving Verstappen one.
Much nearer to 60,000.
If that was a pass for 10th place on lap 25, it’s definitely a penalty. Because it’s a pass for the lead, two laps from the end, it’s a nightmare for the stewards - who need to apply the rules as they are written, consistently.
I think there’s near unanimous support along the pit lane, for being much more lenient on close racing, but that requires a positive change in the rules of engagement.
'Vote Tory, get Corbyn': Nigel Farage demands the Tories STAND ASIDE and give the Brexit Party a free run in Labour seats as he unveils more than ONE HUNDRED candidates to stand in a general election
Once these people have paid up and beenselected, they aren’t going away in a hurry.
Sounds like a money making racket for Farage . What’s new , he should be behind bars sharing a cell with big black bubba who has a penchant for white trash .
What's remarkable to think about in the Cricket is that England could be knocked out of this tournament in part because of India v New Zealand being rained off and there not having been a day set aside to play it.
Had Ind v NZ been played then one of those clubs would have been on 12 points and one would have been on 10, and due to our superior Net Run Rate we would have been ahead currently of whoever is on 10.
If we have a general election I predict the Brexit Party will win zero seats.
Brave and interesting. I suppose BXP might not have any candidates. It can be argued that Farage is currently threatening that his party will stand in order to concentrate the Tory Party's mind, and if the latter gets its act together, Brexitwise, he'll stand his troops down.
Certainly their chances are low if they do stand, if the Right is split between themselves and a Johnson-led Hard-Brexit Tory Party. It then depends on whether Farage can convince Hard Brexiters that the Tories are a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think Farage would have plenty of evidence for this, and surely enough to persuade 15% to vote for him, and pick up a few seats, at least.
15% may not be enough for any seats but may be enough to see Brexit cancelled.
What's remarkable to think about in the Cricket is that England could be knocked out of this tournament in part because of India v New Zealand being rained off and there not having been a day set aside to play it.
Had Ind v NZ been played then one of those clubs would have been on 12 points and one would have been on 10, and due to our superior Net Run Rate we would have been ahead currently of whoever is on 10.
Very good point. The failure to plan for perfectly foreseeable weather contingency was a big failing of the tournament organisers. Half a dozen blank fixtures, with the authority to organise more if necessary, would have made for a much better tournament.
That doesn’t give time for Parliament to reopen before the 31/10 - which means we would need an extension and that provides Farage with all the ammo he needs to attack Boris.
The one thing this leadership campaign has done is create statements which make both candidates hostage of fortune..
No, Parliament reconvenes the week after a GE to allow all members to be sworn in and to elect a Speaker. There's time within that session to conduct business before another short recess and the official State Opening.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
You should be advising the Bozo.
It's like this: there's no provision in the Treaty of Union between Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales for the union to be dissolved.
But if the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK, do we really think the Westminster government would say "Ha! there's no provision in the treaty for you to exit. You are bound to stay in the UK against your will. Ha!"
Instead, we'd recognise that the people of Scotland had made a decision.
And it's the same with Northern Ireland. Irrespective of any treaty, if the people expressed via a referendum (or even if there was a single party in power in Stormont elected on an "exit the backstop" manifesto), then Northern Ireland would leave the backstop. And that can happy either through explicit treaty provisions, or simply via the UK government choosing to abrogate the treaty. In reality, I suspect, if the people of Northern Ireland voted to exit the backstop, then all parties would recognise that that is their democratic right.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
My understanding is that there was no legal way to do that.
I am not comfortable in our only solution to maintain freedoms for people is to say we will break the law. Especially in advance, it is very bad faith to be operating in a way that our rights are only maintained if we act illegally. I fail to see why this can't be delegated to the people of NI [not London] and maintained that way, given that the people of NI will most likely never want to abrogate but at least then they have the right. Its a fundamental principle.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
You should be advising the Bozo.
It's like this: there's no provision in the Treaty of Union between Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales for the union to be dissolved.
But if the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK, do we really think the Westminster government would say "Ha! there's no provision in the treaty for you to exit. You are bound to stay in the UK against your will. Ha!"
Instead, we'd recognise that the people of Scotland had made a decision.
And it's the same with Northern Ireland. Irrespective of any treaty, if the people expressed via a referendum (or even if there was a single party in power in Stormont elected on an "exit the backstop" manifesto), then Northern Ireland would leave the backstop. And that can happy either through explicit treaty provisions, or simply via the UK government choosing to abrogate the treaty. In reality, I suspect, if the people of Northern Ireland voted to exit the backstop, then all parties would recognise that that is their democratic right.
Except Ireland and the EU are maintaining that its not their democratic right.
All this would go away if it was just delegated to NI.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
You should be advising the Bozo.
It's like this: there's no provision in the Treaty of Union between Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales for the union to be dissolved.
But if the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK, do we really think the Westminster government would say "Ha! there's no provision in the treaty for you to exit. You are bound to stay in the UK against your will. Ha!"
Instead, we'd recognise that the people of Scotland had made a decision.
And it's the same with Northern Ireland. Irrespective of any treaty, if the people expressed via a referendum (or even if there was a single party in power in Stormont elected on an "exit the backstop" manifesto), then Northern Ireland would leave the backstop. And that can happy either through explicit treaty provisions, or simply via the UK government choosing to abrogate the treaty. In reality, I suspect, if the people of Northern Ireland voted to exit the backstop, then all parties would recognise that that is their democratic right.
Why not recognise that democratic right in the language of the treaty/agreement?
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
Then it's not a backstop. For it to be a backstop you can have a time limit but you can't have a unilateral right of exit.
Groundhog Day.
Which is why I say no backstop.
What backstop was there to our EU membership? We have had a unilateral right of exit for over a decade now since the Lisbon Treaty came into force.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
You should be advising the Bozo.
It's like this: there's no provision in the Treaty of Union between Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales for the union to be dissolved.
But if the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK, do we really think the Westminster government would say "Ha! there's no provision in the treaty for you to exit. You are bound to stay in the UK against your will. Ha!"
Instead, we'd recognise that the people of Scotland had made a decision.
And it's the same with Northern Ireland. Irrespective of any treaty, if the people expressed via a referendum (or even if there was a single party in power in Stormont elected on an "exit the backstop" manifesto), then Northern Ireland would leave the backstop. And that can happy either through explicit treaty provisions, or simply via the UK government choosing to abrogate the treaty. In reality, I suspect, if the people of Northern Ireland voted to exit the backstop, then all parties would recognise that that is their democratic right.
Why not recognise that democratic right in the language of the treaty/agreement?
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
My understanding is that there was no legal way to do that.
I am not comfortable in our only solution to maintain freedoms for people is to say we will break the law. Especially in advance, it is very bad faith to be operating in a way that our rights are only maintained if we act illegally. I fail to see why this can't be delegated to the people of NI [not London] and maintained that way, given that the people of NI will most likely never want to abrogate but at least then they have the right. Its a fundamental principle.
Geoffrey Cox's words were slightly weaselly.
Abrogation of a treaty is outwith the law - in that it is not provided for by the terms of the treaty.
However it is recognised as the right of a sovereign state to abrogate a treaty - no one has the right to rule it illegal.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
My understanding is that there was no legal way to do that.
I am not comfortable in our only solution to maintain freedoms for people is to say we will break the law. Especially in advance, it is very bad faith to be operating in a way that our rights are only maintained if we act illegally. I fail to see why this can't be delegated to the people of NI [not London] and maintained that way, given that the people of NI will most likely never want to abrogate but at least then they have the right. Its a fundamental principle.
International law doesn't work like you think it does.
What "law" would the UK break if it abrogated the treaty?
It is not acting in bad faith to declare that you will always respect the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Indeed, I would point out that under the terms of our Treaty Membership of the UN, we are required to recognise the right of peoples' self determination. Failure to allow the people of Northern Ireland to exit the backstop would be us breaching that treaty.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
You should be advising the Bozo.
It's like this: there's no provision in the Treaty of Union between Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales for the union to be dissolved.
But if the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK, do we really think the Westminster government would say "Ha! there's no provision in the treaty for you to exit. You are bound to stay in the UK against your will. Ha!"
Instead, we'd recognise that the people of Scotland had made a decision.
And it's the same with Northern Ireland. Irrespective of any treaty, if the people expressed via a referendum (or even if there was a single party in power in Stormont elected on an "exit the backstop" manifesto), then Northern Ireland would leave the backstop. And that can happy either through explicit treaty provisions, or simply via the UK government choosing to abrogate the treaty. In reality, I suspect, if the people of Northern Ireland voted to exit the backstop, then all parties would recognise that that is their democratic right.
No, I get it. I was being semi-serious.
I’ve pointed out before that the possibility of abrogation dissolves many of the ‘principled’ objections to the backstop.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
My understanding is that there was no legal way to do that.
I am not comfortable in our only solution to maintain freedoms for people is to say we will break the law. Especially in advance, it is very bad faith to be operating in a way that our rights are only maintained if we act illegally. I fail to see why this can't be delegated to the people of NI [not London] and maintained that way, given that the people of NI will most likely never want to abrogate but at least then they have the right. Its a fundamental principle.
International law doesn't work like you think it does.
What "law" would the UK break if it abrogated the treaty?
It is not acting in bad faith to declare that you will always respect the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Indeed, I would point out that under the terms of our Treaty Membership of the UN, we are required to recognise the right of peoples' self determination. Failure to allow the people of Northern Ireland to exit the backstop would be us breaching that treaty.
What's remarkable to think about in the Cricket is that England could be knocked out of this tournament in part because of India v New Zealand being rained off and there not having been a day set aside to play it.
Had Ind v NZ been played then one of those clubs would have been on 12 points and one would have been on 10, and due to our superior Net Run Rate we would have been ahead currently of whoever is on 10.
But you need to follow the logic through further.
1) If NZ had beaten Ind, Ind now on 10. But Ind have two games left - so highly likely they still get to at least 12.
2) If Ind had beaten NZ, NZ now on 10. So Eng still have to beat NZ in final game to finish ahead of NZ.
Only way the Ind/NZ no result matters is if Eng/NZ is rained off. Then in scenario 2, Eng and NZ both on 11 and Eng ahead on run rate.
As an aside, there was no provision in the EEC's treaties to allow Greenland to leave the bloc.
Did it successfully leave or not? Could someone remind me if the EU/EEC tried to use the lack of an exit clause to overrule the 1982 Greenland EEC referendum?
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
You should be advising the Bozo.
It's like this: there's no provision in the Treaty of Union between Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales for the union to be dissolved.
But if the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK, do we really think the Westminster government would say "Ha! there's no provision in the treaty for you to exit. You are bound to stay in the UK against your will. Ha!"
Instead, we'd recognise that the people of Scotland had made a decision.
And it's the same with Northern Ireland. Irrespective of any treaty, if the people expressed via a referendum (or even if there was a single party in power in Stormont elected on an "exit the backstop" manifesto), then Northern Ireland would leave the backstop. And that can happy either through explicit treaty provisions, or simply via the UK government choosing to abrogate the treaty. In reality, I suspect, if the people of Northern Ireland voted to exit the backstop, then all parties would recognise that that is their democratic right.
Why not recognise that democratic right in the language of the treaty/agreement?
Because there is a price to abrogation; just as there is a price to the foolishness of no deal.
Will Northern Labour MPs break their own Whip and push a Boris deal over the line?
They might if it becomes clear Boris will stand aside in their seats to let Farage have a clear run if we need an early GE.
Is this the way out of the mess?
No.
Unlikely that Johnson will step aside for Farage so Farage will split the Brexit vote making it easier for Northern Labour MPs.
Even if Johnson did step aside for Farage, many non ideological Tories wouldn't vote for Farage and the anti Farage voters would vote tactically to keep him out.
I don't think any Labour MPs would break the Labour whip on a VONC on this basis. They'd be thrown out of the party if they did.
On 20%, half or more the remaining Tory vote is ... Remain. Limiting tactical voting opportunities for The Brexit Party to exploit CONS.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
It is difficult to argue against allowing the NI a referendum on whether to have a backstop or a hard border.
The DUP might try, but I doubt it would win them many friends in the region, which might give them pause for reflection.
Force the extremists to face the consequences of their intransigence.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
My understanding is that there was no legal way to do that.
I am not comfortable in our only solution to maintain freedoms for people is to say we will break the law. Especially in advance, it is very bad faith to be operating in a way that our rights are only maintained if we act illegally. I fail to see why this can't be delegated to the people of NI [not London] and maintained that way, given that the people of NI will most likely never want to abrogate but at least then they have the right. Its a fundamental principle.
International law doesn't work like you think it does.
What "law" would the UK break if it abrogated the treaty?
It is not acting in bad faith to declare that you will always respect the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Indeed, I would point out that under the terms of our Treaty Membership of the UN, we are required to recognise the right of peoples' self determination. Failure to allow the people of Northern Ireland to exit the backstop would be us breaching that treaty.
Then why not just enshrine that somehow?
That is my very objection to the backstop [and thus the entire WDA], that it violates NI citizens rights to self-determination.
Enshrine what you're saying can be done anyway and that whole issue goes away.
If we have a general election I predict the Brexit Party will win zero seats.
It depends on their percentage support on the day, obviously. If it is around 15% you could well be right - and at that level they would help other parties, mainly LibDems to take seats off the Tories.
For me it hinges on the principle of consent for NI.
If we have a hard border with the consent of the people of NI, then that's their choice. If they chose to maintain the current fudged situation then that's their choice as well
+1
+1 on condition that the people of NI can change the situation unilaterally in the future.
Given they will in the backstop be following laws they have no say in they must have a unilateral right to exit that or there is no ongoing principle of consent.
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
My understanding is that there was no legal way to do that.
I am not comfortable in our only solution to maintain freedoms for people is to say we will break the law. Especially in advance, it is very bad faith to be operating in a way that our rights are only maintained if we act illegally. I fail to see why this can't be delegated to the people of NI [not London] and maintained that way, given that the people of NI will most likely never want to abrogate but at least then they have the right. Its a fundamental principle.
International law doesn't work like you think it does.
What "law" would the UK break if it abrogated the treaty?
It is not acting in bad faith to declare that you will always respect the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Indeed, I would point out that under the terms of our Treaty Membership of the UN, we are required to recognise the right of peoples' self determination. Failure to allow the people of Northern Ireland to exit the backstop would be us breaching that treaty.
Then why not just enshrine that somehow?
That is my very objection to the backstop [and thus the entire WDA], that it violates NI citizens rights to self-determination.
Enshrine what you're saying can be done anyway and that whole issue goes away.
It doesn't need enshrining, it just requires a basic understanding of international law and sovereignty. Countries deliberately and publicly break international law all the time. The world goes on around them perfectly fine. The whole backstop issue is more about feelings than reality on both sides of the argument.
I think TSE is wrong about the DUP. Their objection was to the backstop, which could have led to NI being economically seperated from the UK. They don't seem to have the same concerns about no deal, or the hard border that it implies. Not sure how the arithmetic otherwise works for a VONC.
Once these people have paid up and beenselected, they aren’t going away in a hurry.
I'd be tempted to do it, on the basis that I'd defect to the Tories within a few days of being elected. I seriously considered doing the same thing for NHA in Lewisham a few years ago...
Once these people have paid up and beenselected, they aren’t going away in a hurry.
I'd be tempted to do it, on the basis that I'd defect to the Tories within a few days of being elected. I seriously considered doing the same thing for NHA in Lewisham a few years ago...
I think TSE is wrong about the DUP. Their objection was to the backstop, which could have led to NI being economically seperated from the UK. They don't seem to have the same concerns about no deal, or the hard border that it implies. Not sure how the arithmetic otherwise works for a VONC.
The DUP's objection is to taking a clear position on anything that is not a unicorn and to taking responsibility for anything. It is impossible to state in a meaningful sentence what it is they want. What they don't want to vote for is every single thing anyone has ever offered.
If they are soft on 'No Deal' (about which I am doubtful) it would be because they can exclaim that their hand are clean - they didn't vote for it.
What they really want is for others to decide to remain.
What if Labour never VoNC? Corbyn, to my mind, seems largely disinterested in Parliamentary procedure, preferring his allotment and rallies to anything going on in the Commons. I think his January VoNC was only done because he was under severe pressure to do so.
I just don't think he cares enough to VoNC.
That's not to say the ERG or Remainers (depending on the situation) within the Conservative party won't try, but I do really wonder about Corbyn. He's not up to the job, and this is another situation where leadership will be required and he'll fall massively short.
What if Labour never VoNC? Corbyn, to my mind, seems largely disinterested in Parliamentary procedure, preferring his allotment and rallies to anything going on in the Commons. I think his January VoNC was only done because he was under severe pressure to do so.
I just don't think he cares enough to VoNC.
That's not to say the ERG or Remainers (depending on the situation) within the Conservative party won't try, but I do really wonder about Corbyn. He's not up to the job, and this is another situation where leadership will be required and he'll fall massively short.
Only the Leader of the Opposition can table a VoNC under the terms of the FTPA as far as I'm aware.
What if Labour never VoNC? Corbyn, to my mind, seems largely disinterested in Parliamentary procedure, preferring his allotment and rallies to anything going on in the Commons. I think his January VoNC was only done because he was under severe pressure to do so.
I just don't think he cares enough to VoNC.
That's not to say the ERG or Remainers (depending on the situation) within the Conservative party won't try, but I do really wonder about Corbyn. He's not up to the job, and this is another situation where leadership will be required and he'll fall massively short.
Only the Leader of the Opposition can table a VoNC under the terms of the FTPA as far as I'm aware.
Not quite true. Only the Leader of the Opposition can table a VoNC which (I think) MUST be debated, but any MP can table a VoNC and hope either the Government allow time, or the Speaker calls it to be debated. If you look at Hansard for 15th January 2019, you'll see Theresa May herself said, after losing MV1, the government would make time for a VoNC if Labour didn't table one, but the SNP/LD did.
So, yes, if Corbyn doesn't table a VoNC then anyone else tabling it might get ignored.... but you know... Bercow.... so all bets are off.
Once these people have paid up and beenselected, they aren’t going away in a hurry.
I'd be tempted to do it, on the basis that I'd defect to the Tories within a few days of being elected. I seriously considered doing the same thing for NHA in Lewisham a few years ago...
Very poor form.
Indeed. I was thinking of doing it and defecting to the LibDems half way through the campaign...
You know, though, we can announce that in a situation where the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to exit the backstop, we would - with regret - be forced to abrogate the treaty.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
My understanding is that there was no legal way to do that.
I am not comfortable in our only solution to maintain freedoms for people is to say we will break the law. Especially in advance, it is very bad faith to be operating in a way that our rights are only maintained if we act illegally. I fail to see why this can't be delegated to the people of NI [not London] and maintained that way, given that the people of NI will most likely never want to abrogate but at least then they have the right. Its a fundamental principle.
International law doesn't work like you think it does.
What "law" would the UK break if it abrogated the treaty?
It is not acting in bad faith to declare that you will always respect the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Indeed, I would point out that under the terms of our Treaty Membership of the UN, we are required to recognise the right of peoples' self determination. Failure to allow the people of Northern Ireland to exit the backstop would be us breaching that treaty.
Then why not just enshrine that somehow?
That is my very objection to the backstop [and thus the entire WDA], that it violates NI citizens rights to self-determination.
Enshrine what you're saying can be done anyway and that whole issue goes away.
It doesn't need enshrining, it just requires a basic understanding of international law and sovereignty. Countries deliberately and publicly break international law all the time. The world goes on around them perfectly fine. The whole backstop issue is more about feelings than reality on both sides of the argument.
The ability of Brexiteers to simultaneously believe that no deal Brexit would be cost free, and the backstop a prison from which breaking would institute armageddon, is utterly bizarre.
What if Labour never VoNC? Corbyn, to my mind, seems largely disinterested in Parliamentary procedure, preferring his allotment and rallies to anything going on in the Commons. I think his January VoNC was only done because he was under severe pressure to do so.
I just don't think he cares enough to VoNC.
That's not to say the ERG or Remainers (depending on the situation) within the Conservative party won't try, but I do really wonder about Corbyn. He's not up to the job, and this is another situation where leadership will be required and he'll fall massively short.
Only the Leader of the Opposition can table a VoNC under the terms of the FTPA as far as I'm aware.
Really? That’s not in the text of the Act itself so far as I can see. Is it a Parliamentary convention perhaps?
Once these people have paid up and beenselected, they aren’t going away in a hurry.
I'd be tempted to do it, on the basis that I'd defect to the Tories within a few days of being elected. I seriously considered doing the same thing for NHA in Lewisham a few years ago...
Very poor form.
Indeed. I was thinking of doing it and defecting to the LibDems half way through the campaign...
At least I'd have been honest with myself from the start, so I'd be deceiving one fewer person than Chuka, Soubry etc.
This thread has made me wonder if any betting firm has offered a line (spread, account, market, or whatever it's called) as to whether a clean break from the EU might be followed by Scotland peeling away and/or by civil war in Ireland.
This thread has made me wonder if any betting firm has offered a line (spread, account, market, or whatever it's called) as to whether a clean break from the EU might be followed by Scotland peeling away and/or by civil war in Ireland.
... or by civil war in Ireland ? I don’t think anyone is going to touch that.
This thread has made me wonder if any betting firm has offered a line (spread, account, market, or whatever it's called) as to whether a clean break from the EU might be followed by Scotland peeling away and/or by civil war in Ireland.
... or by civil war in Ireland ? I don’t think anyone is going to touch that.
It's just my (gnomic?) way of saying that maybe we should take those possibilities seriously.
Agenda for this week: Boris seeks to refer to his track record on reducing knife crime whilst Mayor of London.
Interviewer: "So Mr Johnson, what do you think about families with absentee fathers?"
Fact to remember: Fatherless families are the biggest determinant of susceptibility to knife crime.
Double Fact to remember: He has not yet released to the security services the names and whereabouts of all his children so that they might be protected in the event he becomes PM.
Agenda for this week: Boris seeks to refer to his track record on reducing knife crime whilst Mayor of London.
Interviewer: "So Mr Johnson, what do you think about families with absentee fathers?"
Fact to remember: Fatherless families are the biggest determinant of susceptibility to knife crime.
Double Fact to remember: He has not yet released to the security services the names and whereabouts of all his children so that they might be protected in the event he becomes PM.
Bunnco - Your man absolutely on the spot.
You’re assuming Mr J is aware of the whereabouts of all of his progeny. That seems a bold assumption given his track record.
As well as his key commitment to Leave the EU with No Deal and go straight to WTO terms, Nigel Farage promises to abolish interest rates on student loans, scrap HS2 and halve overseas aid and use the savings to fund £200 billion of economic development outside London at a Brexit Party rally in Birmingham today.
He also unveiled the first 100 Brexit Party Parliamentary candidates selected ready for any snap general election.
Perhaps i'm overthinking it, but is it possible that Hunt's line on this is actually an attempt to get the Conservative party to seriously confront the reality of no deal, in a vain attempt to create a route to being able to get off the hook they've impaled themselves on? He can't get anywhere by opposing no deal because of the consequences ("project fear"), so has decided to go down the route of claiming that he will implement no deal despite the consequences (Johnson of course is arguing that there will be no serious consequences).
And it may be a position being pushed with an eye on a possible no deal aftermath.
As well as his key commitment to Leave the EU with No Deal and go to WTO terms Nigel Farage promises to abolish interest rates on student loans, scrap HS2 and halve overseas aid use the savings to fund £200 billion of economic development outside London at a rally in Birmingham today.
He also unveiled the first 100 Brexit Party Parliamentary candidates selected ready for any snap general election.
Agenda for this week: Boris seeks to refer to his track record on reducing knife crime whilst Mayor of London.
Interviewer: "So Mr Johnson, what do you think about families with absentee fathers?"
Fact to remember: Fatherless families are the biggest determinant of susceptibility to knife crime.
Double Fact to remember: He has not yet released to the security services the names and whereabouts of all his children so that they might be protected in the event he becomes PM.
Bunnco - Your man absolutely on the spot.
You’re assuming Mr J is aware of the whereabouts of all of his progeny. That seems a bold assumption given his track record.
I thought it was reported that some of them at least are refusing to talk to him at all?
Agenda for this week: Boris seeks to refer to his track record on reducing knife crime whilst Mayor of London.
Interviewer: "So Mr Johnson, what do you think about families with absentee fathers?"
Fact to remember: Fatherless families are the biggest determinant of susceptibility to knife crime.
Double Fact to remember: He has not yet released to the security services the names and whereabouts of all his children so that they might be protected in the event he becomes PM.
What if Labour never VoNC? Corbyn, to my mind, seems largely disinterested in Parliamentary procedure, preferring his allotment and rallies to anything going on in the Commons. I think his January VoNC was only done because he was under severe pressure to do so.
I just don't think he cares enough to VoNC.
That's not to say the ERG or Remainers (depending on the situation) within the Conservative party won't try, but I do really wonder about Corbyn. He's not up to the job, and this is another situation where leadership will be required and he'll fall massively short.
Only the Leader of the Opposition can table a VoNC under the terms of the FTPA as far as I'm aware.
Really? That’s not in the text of the Act itself so far as I can see. Is it a Parliamentary convention perhaps?
Any MP can table a motion of no confidence, but only one tabled by the LOTO takes precedence over other business and has to be debated.
What if Labour never VoNC? Corbyn, to my mind, seems largely disinterested in Parliamentary procedure, preferring his allotment and rallies to anything going on in the Commons. I think his January VoNC was only done because he was under severe pressure to do so.
I just don't think he cares enough to VoNC.
That's not to say the ERG or Remainers (depending on the situation) within the Conservative party won't try, but I do really wonder about Corbyn. He's not up to the job, and this is another situation where leadership will be required and he'll fall massively short.
Only the Leader of the Opposition can table a VoNC under the terms of the FTPA as far as I'm aware.
Really? That’s not in the text of the Act itself so far as I can see. Is it a Parliamentary convention perhaps?
Not true - in theory anyone, and in practice any party leader, can table one - and if you recall all the opposition leaders except Corbyn did so a while back, when he was sitting on that particular fence.
The problem is getting it called - by convention the Speaker always takes a VONC from LOTO shortly after it is tabled, but can ignore one coming from anywhere else.
As well as his key commitment to Leave the EU with No Deal and go to WTO terms Nigel Farage promises to abolish interest rates on student loans, scrap HS2 and halve overseas aid use the savings to fund £200 billion of economic development outside London at a rally in Birmingham today.
He also unveiled the first 100 Brexit Party Parliamentary candidates selected ready for any snap general election.
I did not even vote Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections so I will certainly not be applying to be a Brexit Party candidate at the next general election.
I am not a No Deal diehard, I still want Brexit with a Deal
Perhaps i'm overthinking it, but is it possible that Hunt's line on this is actually an attempt to get the Conservative party to seriously confront the reality of no deal, in a vain attempt to create a route to being able to get off the hook they've impaled themselves on? He can't get anywhere by opposing no deal because of the consequences ("project fear"), so has decided to go down the route of claiming that he will implement no deal despite the consequences (Johnson of course is arguing that there will be no serious consequences).
And it may be a position being pushed with an eye on a possible no deal aftermath.
Hunt has still refused to rule out further extension in October though
Agenda for this week: Boris seeks to refer to his track record on reducing knife crime whilst Mayor of London.
Interviewer: "So Mr Johnson, what do you think about families with absentee fathers?"
Fact to remember: Fatherless families are the biggest determinant of susceptibility to knife crime.
Double Fact to remember: He has not yet released to the security services the names and whereabouts of all his children so that they might be protected in the event he becomes PM.
Bunnco - Your man absolutely on the spot.
I love the fact that Wikipedia says that he has
"Children: 5 or 6"
I have a few, but then again, too few to mention...
As well as his key commitment to Leave the EU with No Deal and go to WTO terms Nigel Farage promises to abolish interest rates on student loans, scrap HS2 and halve overseas aid use the savings to fund £200 billion of economic development outside London at a rally in Birmingham today.
He also unveiled the first 100 Brexit Party Parliamentary candidates selected ready for any snap general election.
This no doubt the same pollster that had a majority of seats now backing Remain a few months before the Brexit Party came first in 2/3 of local authority areas in the European Parliament elections?
Yet more dubious attempts to dig into Boris' personal life, as the polls showed last week most Tory members do not care, nor do most Tory voters and Leave voters.
As well as his key commitment to Leave the EU with No Deal and go to WTO terms Nigel Farage promises to abolish interest rates on student loans, scrap HS2 and halve overseas aid use the savings to fund £200 billion of economic development outside London at a rally in Birmingham today.
He also unveiled the first 100 Brexit Party Parliamentary candidates selected ready for any snap general election.
Yet more dubious attempts to dig into Boris' personal life, as the polls showed last week most Tory members do not care, nor do most Tory voters and Leave voters.
Point of order: isn't this a successful attempt to dig into Boris' personal life?
Comments
Certainly their chances are low if they do stand, if the Right is split between themselves and a Johnson-led Hard-Brexit Tory Party. It then depends on whether Farage can convince Hard Brexiters that the Tories are a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think Farage would have plenty of evidence for this, and surely enough to persuade 15% to vote for him, and pick up a few seats, at least.
I think there's room for doubt. Verstappen took the racing line. That said, he didn't leave any room.
But I think there's a danger that F1 rules and decision-makers think a bland DRS pass is normal, and a racing pass in a corner is something that, fairly often, should be punished.
They never should've given Vettel a penalty. But doing so makes it harder to avoid giving Verstappen one.
If that was a pass for 10th place on lap 25, it’s definitely a penalty. Because it’s a pass for the lead, two laps from the end, it’s a nightmare for the stewards - who need to apply the rules as they are written, consistently.
I think there’s near unanimous support along the pit lane, for being much more lenient on close racing, but that requires a positive change in the rules of engagement.
https://twitter.com/redbullracing/status/1145388595890589696
Had Ind v NZ been played then one of those clubs would have been on 12 points and one would have been on 10, and due to our superior Net Run Rate we would have been ahead currently of whoever is on 10.
Job done.
There's no need to even involve the EU in this.
Banana is awesome on a pizza. Banana and bacon is a great combination.
Banana and bacon works on anything.
I'm off to my safe space, that tweet has triggered me.
But if the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK, do we really think the Westminster government would say "Ha! there's no provision in the treaty for you to exit. You are bound to stay in the UK against your will. Ha!"
Instead, we'd recognise that the people of Scotland had made a decision.
And it's the same with Northern Ireland. Irrespective of any treaty, if the people expressed via a referendum (or even if there was a single party in power in Stormont elected on an "exit the backstop" manifesto), then Northern Ireland would leave the backstop. And that can happy either through explicit treaty provisions, or simply via the UK government choosing to abrogate the treaty. In reality, I suspect, if the people of Northern Ireland voted to exit the backstop, then all parties would recognise that that is their democratic right.
I am not comfortable in our only solution to maintain freedoms for people is to say we will break the law. Especially in advance, it is very bad faith to be operating in a way that our rights are only maintained if we act illegally. I fail to see why this can't be delegated to the people of NI [not London] and maintained that way, given that the people of NI will most likely never want to abrogate but at least then they have the right. Its a fundamental principle.
All this would go away if it was just delegated to NI.
What backstop was there to our EU membership? We have had a unilateral right of exit for over a decade now since the Lisbon Treaty came into force.
Abrogation of a treaty is outwith the law - in that it is not provided for by the terms of the treaty.
However it is recognised as the right of a sovereign state to abrogate a treaty - no one has the right to rule it illegal.
What "law" would the UK break if it abrogated the treaty?
It is not acting in bad faith to declare that you will always respect the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Indeed, I would point out that under the terms of our Treaty Membership of the UN, we are required to recognise the right of peoples' self determination. Failure to allow the people of Northern Ireland to exit the backstop would be us breaching that treaty.
I was being semi-serious.
I’ve pointed out before that the possibility of abrogation dissolves many of the ‘principled’ objections to the backstop.
1) If NZ had beaten Ind, Ind now on 10. But Ind have two games left - so highly likely they still get to at least 12.
2) If Ind had beaten NZ, NZ now on 10. So Eng still have to beat NZ in final game to finish ahead of NZ.
Only way the Ind/NZ no result matters is if Eng/NZ is rained off. Then in scenario 2, Eng and NZ both on 11 and Eng ahead on run rate.
Did it successfully leave or not? Could someone remind me if the EU/EEC tried to use the lack of an exit clause to overrule the 1982 Greenland EEC referendum?
That is my very objection to the backstop [and thus the entire WDA], that it violates NI citizens rights to self-determination.
Enshrine what you're saying can be done anyway and that whole issue goes away.
I expect a rather different attitude from Verstappen at that point.
If they are soft on 'No Deal' (about which I am doubtful) it would be because they can exclaim that their hand are clean - they didn't vote for it.
What they really want is for others to decide to remain.
What if Labour never VoNC? Corbyn, to my mind, seems largely disinterested in Parliamentary procedure, preferring his allotment and rallies to anything going on in the Commons. I think his January VoNC was only done because he was under severe pressure to do so.
I just don't think he cares enough to VoNC.
That's not to say the ERG or Remainers (depending on the situation) within the Conservative party won't try, but I do really wonder about Corbyn. He's not up to the job, and this is another situation where leadership will be required and he'll fall massively short.
But there is nothing too perplexing about a team giving up when it is beat and concentrating on the net run rate.
Who knows.
You're welcome.
Or Brexiteers ...
So, yes, if Corbyn doesn't table a VoNC then anyone else tabling it might get ignored.... but you know... Bercow.... so all bets are off.
The evidence is that India’s batting struggles a few wickets down.
At least I'd have been honest with myself from the start, so I'd be deceiving one fewer person than Chuka, Soubry etc.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
No doubt it will take a week or so for a clear picture to emerge.
I don’t think anyone is going to touch that.
It's an Americano with cold milk... the way we traditionally took coffee in Britain B.S. (Before Starbucks)
Interviewer: "So Mr Johnson, what do you think about families with absentee fathers?"
Fact to remember: Fatherless families are the biggest determinant of susceptibility to knife crime.
Double Fact to remember: He has not yet released to the security services the names and whereabouts of all his children so that they might be protected in the event he becomes PM.
Bunnco - Your man absolutely on the spot.
(I have more.)
Though more fun participating.
He also unveiled the first 100 Brexit Party Parliamentary candidates selected ready for any snap general election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48819725
Perhaps i'm overthinking it, but is it possible that Hunt's line on this is actually an attempt to get the Conservative party to seriously confront the reality of no deal, in a vain attempt to create a route to being able to get off the hook they've impaled themselves on? He can't get anywhere by opposing no deal because of the consequences ("project fear"), so has decided to go down the route of claiming that he will implement no deal despite the consequences (Johnson of course is arguing that there will be no serious consequences).
And it may be a position being pushed with an eye on a possible no deal aftermath.
"Children: 5 or 6"
The problem is getting it called - by convention the Speaker always takes a VONC from LOTO shortly after it is tabled, but can ignore one coming from anywhere else.
I am not a No Deal diehard, I still want Brexit with a Deal
Do the candidates have seats, or is that little detail being left until later?
Just diehard Remainer dirty tricks