Labour will be in terrible trouble if Johnson manages to get a deal.
With the right wing press lauding it and if the ERG get behind it all of a sudden the NI backstop which will be the same thing but just had its name changed will be the best thing ever .
Labour know if a deal gets through Johnson will see a surge in support, if he gets a deal but it’s voted down a GE will see his mantra as the opposition blocking Brexit more powerful than ever .
The opposition know their best chance is no deal being agreed and an extension .
But the public is also shrewd enough to know that any extension is just Labour delaying the point where they get that whacking. And the public don't want an extension.
Some differences there - but smaller than I'd expected - and the order changes when the post-Brexit condition is added. However, I don't know enough about the demography of each area to interpret them.
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoningenuous.
Perhaps you should publish anconspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
I seem to remember one ukip mep assualting another!
There have only ever been three UKIP MPs. Have any of them ever been assaulted?
Yes. Carswell. You didn’t notice because, subconsciously, you thought it was fair enough. QED
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoningenuous.
Perhaps you should publish anconspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
I seem to remember one ukip mep assualting another!
There have only ever been three UKIP MPs. Have any of them ever been assaulted?
Yes. Carswell. You didn’t notice because, subconsciously, you thought it was fair enough. QED
If there was a referendum held tomorrow on Wales becoming an independent country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Wales be an independent country? Yes 24 No 52 WNV 6 DK 14 Refused 3
And please imagine a scenario where the rest of the UK left the European Union but Wales could remain a member of the European Union if it became an independent country. If a referendum was then held in Wales about becoming an independent country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Wales be an independent country? Yes 33 No 48 DK 17 Refused 3
Those are quite impressive figures. Clearly being pro-EU is driving Welsh Nationalism, perhaps because Brexitism is so dominated by English Nationalists.
Though if a seamless border is do-able in Ireland, why not at Hadrian's wall and Offa's dyke?
Exactly (though it's really Tweed and Solway, unless E&W are ceding most of Northumberland). In 2014 it was all machine gun posts and concrete walls avant Trump on the border with an independent Scotland outwith the EU. Now it's all about tech and invisible border in Ireland.
Rutland is a wonderful slice of England. Full of lovely villages and in Oakham and Uppingham they have two splendid small towns.
Well worth a visit.
Keep quiet about it please! Half of it's charm is most people don't know about it. It is the Cotswolds without the crowds of Londoners.
Whilst it's not quite in Rutland, I always think Stamford is like Oxford or Cambridge but without the horrible students (and tourists).
+1
Agree. Stamford just in Lincolnshire, but don't tell anyone how wonderful that whole county is.
While not questioning the loveliness of the place (love the half-submerged church and old roads leading into the reservoir), how has the county council survived ten years of austerity as a unitary with a population of fewer than 40,000? I know of areas with 3 or 4 times that population where mergers have been mooted. Fair play to them if they've managed to balance the books.
Is there a single person in Europe, outside European politics, who could name all of those people? I doubt it. I literally don’t believe there is such a European person. And yet this is our new and entirely unelected European government. Our new overlords.
Brexit in a photo.
This is how EU democracy works. A representative from each sovereign member state. If they were elected it would diminish national sovereignty. You know that.
It is a problem, albeit a somewhat minor one, that most people in the EU don't know who these people are, though you'd no doubt complain if the EU spent money sending information leaflets to every voter.
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoningenuous.
Perhaps you should publish anconspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
I seem to remember one ukip mep assualting another!
There have only ever been three UKIP MPs. Have any of them ever been assaulted?
Yes. Carswell. You didn’t notice because, subconsciously, you thought it was fair enough. QED
Mr. Byronic, one person wearing a t-shirt with a political slogan isn't justification for another to spit at them.
People get to hold and express views without being subject to such wretched behaviour. That's what democracy means, the freedom to hold different but valid perspectives.
Some people seem to think that democracy means that you aren't allowed to express views that have lost a public vote.
Labour will be in terrible trouble if Johnson manages to get a deal.
With the right wing press lauding it and if the ERG get behind it all of a sudden the NI backstop which will be the same thing but just had its name changed will be the best thing ever .
Labour know if a deal gets through Johnson will see a surge in support, if he gets a deal but it’s voted down a GE will see his mantra as the opposition blocking Brexit more powerful than ever .
The opposition know their best chance is no deal being agreed and an extension .
Those 'if's are doing a lot of work there.
A deal is his obvious play. Falling off a log easy. As we have seen, this sh&t just got real and if he brings a deal back to the house. May's deal rolled in glitter, for example, then every MP who votes against it can be charged with wanting no deal. Which is of course their right, if they are Mark Francois and have been advocating no deal all along. But not if they are Lab MPs who are apparently dedicated to no no deal.
But they are screwed if there is no further extension offered by the EU. Then it is No Deal or Boris's Deal. Whatcher gonna do, Labour?
The EU are reportedly worried as to whether Boris could get a deal through Parliament. It is falling off a log easy - if they give no further extension. All of the Remainer No Deal hand-wringing has made it certain.
Rutland is a wonderful slice of England. Full of lovely villages and in Oakham and Uppingham they have two splendid small towns.
Well worth a visit.
Keep quiet about it please! Half of it's charm is most people don't know about it. It is the Cotswolds without the crowds of Londoners.
Whilst it's not quite in Rutland, I always think Stamford is like Oxford or Cambridge but without the horrible students (and tourists).
+1
Agree. Stamford just in Lincolnshire, but don't tell anyone how wonderful that whole county is.
While not questioning the loveliness of the place (love the half-submerged church and old roads leading into the reservoir), how has the county council survived ten years of austerity as a unitary with a population of fewer than 40,000? I know of areas with 3 or 4 times that population where mergers have been mooted. Fair play to them if they've managed to balance the books.
I am only guessing here but... does it have very few areas of deprivation?
Should you be allowed to wear a Star of David Israeli flag tee shirt around Luton or Tower Hamlets? Yes. You should. It’s a free country.
Could the police guarantee your safety? No. Because it’s a childishly provocative and pointlessly offensive thing to do - like wearing a Bollocks to Brexit badge. Morpurgo is a fool.
But it is wrong as opposed to just something to shrug one's shoulders at. You didn't seem sure as in it was tantamount to Morpurgo getting a bloody good hiding which you didn't seem to think was too much of a shame, given that he was asking for it.
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoningenuous.
Perhaps you should publish anconspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
I seem to remember one ukip mep assualting another!
There have only ever been three UKIP MPs. Have any of them ever been assaulted?
Yes. Carswell. You didn’t notice because, subconsciously, you thought it was fair enough. QED
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoningenuous.
Perhaps you should publish anconspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
I seem to remember one ukip mep assualting another!
There have only ever been three UKIP MPs. Have any of them ever been assaulted?
Yes. Carswell. You didn’t notice because, subconsciously, you thought it was fair enough. QED
Labour will be in terrible trouble if Johnson manages to get a deal.
With the right wing press lauding it and if the ERG get behind it all of a sudden the NI backstop which will be the same thing but just had its name changed will be the best thing ever .
Labour know if a deal gets through Johnson will see a surge in support, if he gets a deal but it’s voted down a GE will see his mantra as the opposition blocking Brexit more powerful than ever .
The opposition know their best chance is no deal being agreed and an extension .
Those 'if's are doing a lot of work there.
A deal is his obvious play. Falling off a log easy. As we have seen, this sh&t just got real and if he brings a deal back to the house. May's deal rolled in glitter, for example, then every MP who votes against it can be charged with wanting no deal. Which is of course their right, if they are Mark Francois and have been advocating no deal all along. But not if they are Lab MPs who are apparently dedicated to no no deal.
But they are screwed if there is no further extension offered by the EU. Then it is No Deal or Boris's Deal. Whatcher gonna do, Labour?
The EU are reportedly worried as to whether Boris could get a deal through Parliament. It is falling off a log easy - if they give no further extension. All of the Remainer No Deal hand-wringing has made it certain.
I think the extension is contingent upon the deal being voted through. I wouldn't spend too much time on what the EU is "reportedly" thinking. If Boris gets his deal through Parliament - falling off a log easy - then there would be an extension.
I’m going to Hartlepool on Sunday. I will report back... 🙄
There will be a lot of anger up there: an anger over Brexit, for sure, but also with a political elite that has, for decades, ignored this anger and sought to impose its own considerations and priorities over an angry populace. They are angry.
I think we have to be careful how we define "anger". I am angry that we had a referendum on something so important that was run in such a simplistic way and was distorted both during and after the debate, but I am not going to man the barricades. Equally I am angry that Boris Johnson and the right wing entryists have wrecked the Conservative Party, but I am not about to do anything illegal to vent my spleen. People can be "angry", but there is a fundamental difference between being highly annoyed politically and civil unrest.
I think as always it's a tiny minority who are overexcitable and actively want some kind of violence. And even of those, only a small number would have the bottle to do anything about it. And of those, a small minority would have the wit to do anything effective.
It's like on here. Those who talk up civil war number about 3, and one of those was stupid enough to actually make direct threats ("perhaps my punch in your fat smug, pig-ugly face will persuade you.. perhaps a bomb... we will come for you first"). I assume that person will be ejected from these boards when the moderators wake up. Certainly if they said these things in public they would be arrested and that's maybe the end of their insurrection.
The point is, you need to be angry enough to want violence, brave enough to commit it yourself, and discreet enough to keep your head down and not be noticed, and clever enough to think up something effective. There's almost nobody who fits those criteria.
I think the 'punch in your fat smug, pig-ugly face will persuade you' line was directed at me. I'm relaxed about it though. If that poster is who we think it is, then it was just some rather expensive gin talking.
It wasn’t him. It was me. It wasn’t gin. It was Rioja.
Is there a single person in Europe, outside European politics, who could name all of those people? I doubt it. I literally don’t believe there is such a European person. And yet this is our new and entirely unelected European government. Our new overlords.
Brexit in a photo.
This is how EU democracy works. A representative from each sovereign member state. If they were elected it would diminish national sovereignty. You know that.
It is a problem, albeit a somewhat minor one, that most people in the EU don't know who these people are, though you'd no doubt complain if the EU spent money sending information leaflets to every voter.
It’s a “somewhat minor problem” that no-one in the E.U. - literally, no one - can recognise their own government.
I am going to hoard this comment, and keep it for darker moments. I will then carefully read it, word by word, when I need a burst of sardonic hilarity to illuminate the gloom.
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoningenuous.
Perhaps you should publish anconspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
I seem to remember one ukip mep assualting another!
There have only ever been three UKIP MPs. Have any of them ever been assaulted?
Yes. Carswell. You didn’t notice because, subconsciously, you thought it was fair enough. QED
Not obviously assaulted. Any more? You did say it was a regular occurrence.
Not indulging your infantile and pedantic wankery any more. Next.
You made a claim in support of your condoning of spitting at Remainers. I asked for proof. You have none. So you’re just spewing bile for the sake of it.
Farage has been accused of being precious in the recent past. Personally I’d be pressing charges against that twitter account holder and I hope he does. And I’d hope for exactly the same if someone Tweeted similar to a Lammy or Phillips.
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoningenuous.
Perhaps you should publish anconspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
I seem to remember one ukip mep assualting another!
There have only ever been three UKIP MPs. Have any of them ever been assaulted?
Yes. Carswell. You didn’t notice because, subconsciously, you thought it was fair enough. QED
Not obviously assaulted. Any more? You did say it was a regular occurrence.
Not indulging your infantile and pedantic wankery any more. Next.
You made a claim in support of your condoning of spitting at Remainers. I asked for proof. You have none. So you’re just spewing bile for the sake of it.
I refer the Honourable Member for Pedantic Wankery (South) to my previous reply.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
If the Belfast agreement is an impediment to the UK leaving the EU, is not a proposed Northern Ireland only backstop not a future problem for the EU?
If at a later date, Ireland wanted to join Schengen, it couldn’t as the CTA and the NI backstop would allow passport free access to British citizens to enter EU member states?
Yes and yes. The GFA/BA is an elaborate fudge designed quite rightly to bring peace. Moving any element of it will cause a further problem unless the further movement is towards a united Ireland, all either in or out of the EU, or a united Ireland and Great Britain (the New Zealand solution to having two big islands close to one another) either all in or all out of EU. Don't hold your breath. Apart from 800 years of tragic history the latter solution is so obvious it hardly needs comment, except that it is presented to us by the happenstance of tectonic plate movements. Where are Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King them you need them? For the moment the issue is not 'Will change cause problems?' but 'Who is holding the baby when the music temporarily stops?'
While the SNP agitate for separation. The joy of joined up thinking (not yours, Politicians and Nationalists)
You cretin , there is no separation , it just means we become a normal independent country. You arsehole unionists like to make it sound as bad as you can, down to the yellow streak as you run scared of being left on your own as a petty xenophobic backwater.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
We sure do. You threatened me with violence a few hours ago, and I think what you said falls foul of the malicious communications act. I don't quite understand why you haven't been banned from this place for that.
Apparently it's an arcane PB rule that licence on saying any old outrageous shit when pished applies to all incarnations of certain individuals. The UK constitution has nothing on this place.
Don't tell me the handbags are out and the boys are rolling up the sleeves of their blouses.
If the Belfast agreement is an impediment to the UK leaving the EU, is not a proposed Northern Ireland only backstop not a future problem for the EU?
If at a later date, Ireland wanted to join Schengen, it couldn’t as the CTA and the NI backstop would allow passport free access to British citizens to enter EU member states?
Yes and yes. The GFA/BA is an elaborate fudge designed quite rightly to bring peace. Moving any element of it will cause a further problem unless the further movement is towards a united Ireland, all either in or out of the EU, or a united Ireland and Great Britain (the New Zealand solution to having two big islands close to one another) either all in or all out of EU. Don't hold your breath. Apart from 800 years of tragic history the latter solution is so obvious it hardly needs comment, except that it is presented to us by the happenstance of tectonic plate movements. Where are Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King them you need them? For the moment the issue is not 'Will change cause problems?' but 'Who is holding the baby when the music temporarily stops?'
While the SNP agitate for separation. The joy of joined up thinking (not yours, Politicians and Nationalists)
You cretin , there is no separation , it just means we become a normal independent country. You arsehole unionists like to make it sound as bad as you can, down to the yellow streak as you run scared of being left on your own as a petty xenophobic backwater.
I oppose a border on the island of Ireland and I oppose a border on the island of Britain.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
Yes, the left have never had violence directed at them ever in the history of the UK. Such profound insight with a real understanding of the nuance of history there.
If the Belfast agreement is an impediment to the UK leaving the EU, is not a proposed Northern Ireland only backstop not a future problem for the EU?
If at a later date, Ireland wanted to join Schengen, it couldn’t as the CTA and the NI backstop would allow passport free access to British citizens to enter EU member states?
Yes and yes. The GFA/BA is an elaborate fudge designed quite rightly to bring peace. Moving any element of it will cause a further problem unless the further movement is towards a united Ireland, all either in or out of the EU, or a united Ireland and Great Britain (the New Zealand solution to having two big islands close to one another) either all in or all out of EU. Don't hold your breath. Apart from 800 years of tragic history the latter solution is so obvious it hardly needs comment, except that it is presented to us by the happenstance of tectonic plate movements. Where are Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King them you need them? For the moment the issue is not 'Will change cause problems?' but 'Who is holding the baby when the music temporarily stops?'
While the SNP agitate for separation. The joy of joined up thinking (not yours, Politicians and Nationalists)
You cretin , there is no separation , it just means we become a normal independent country. You arsehole unionists like to make it sound as bad as you can, down to the yellow streak as you run scared of being left on your own as a petty xenophobic backwater.
I oppose a border on the island of Ireland and I oppose a border on the island of Britain.
If there was a referendum held tomorrow on Wales becoming an independent country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Wales be an independent country? Yes 24 No 52 WNV 6 DK 14 Refused 3
And please imagine a scenario where the rest of the UK left the European Union but Wales could remain a member of the European Union if it became an independent country. If a referendum was then held in Wales about becoming an independent country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Wales be an independent country? Yes 33 No 48 DK 17 Refused 3
Those are quite impressive figures. Clearly being pro-EU is driving Welsh Nationalism, perhaps because Brexitism is so dominated by English Nationalists.
Though if a seamless border is do-able in Ireland, why not at Hadrian's wall and Offa's dyke?
Exactly (though it's really Tweed and Solway, unless E&W are ceding most of Northumberland). In 2014 it was all machine gun posts and concrete walls avant Trump on the border with an independent Scotland outwith the EU. Now it's all about tech and invisible border in Ireland.
Kind of shot themselves in the foot when Indyref2 comes up , they cannot whinge about needing border posts and barbed wire now.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
I think I spotted one darker skinned woman but she may be just back from her holidays of course!
Noticeable how badly dressed they all are. Terrible footwear - apart from the lady with the cool trainers. I am inexplicably drawn to the Maltese mafioso on the far right.
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoning it. Saying he should have expected it. If you wear a badge saying “your vote should be cancelled” then people who voted that way are going to be very very offended. Stop being disingenuous.
Perhaps you should publish an Atlas of safe areas where Remain supporters can go out in public. Maybe with isobars of Leaviness, with a steadily deepening colour marking the descent to Deliverance.
Right now No Deal Leavers are advocating a course of action that plays ducks and drakes with critical medical supplies and the worst that someone wearing a Brexit party badge could reasonably expect in inner London is conspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
Diane James, then UKIP leader, being spat at in a London mainline station.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
By that measure ERG should have the whip withdrawn as they are unlikley to back any type of deal...
That will be the quid pro quo for Boris removing the whip from the 21. Sauce for the goose and all that. And if No Deal really is the only alternative, they will cut lonely figures in the division lobby. For what?
Nah, Baker apart, they'll probably see if they can stay members if they just abstain. To be told no.
I know most on here think I'm just talking bollocks, but I see a scenario where:
1. Boris gets a one-minute-to-midnight deal with the heads of the 27 (Barnier having been cut adrift). To get the deal through, they agree that there should be no further extension of the deadline.
2. The DUP get bought off. Grumpy, but will not vote the deal down. As the DUP default setting is grumpy, no-one can tell the difference.
3. The ERG are told support the deal, or lose the whip.
4. Corbyn can't allow No Deal, but can't be seen to implement Brexit. He whips for an abstention, to stop a wholesale defection of his Leave-seat MPs voting for the Deal. It guarantees the Boris Deal will pass.
5. SNP, Greens, LibDems, PC vote against any form of Brexit. Safe in the knowledge that Labour will ensure they aren't risking actually facilitating a No Deal Brexit.
6. Some of the 21 are told they will have the Whip returned and can stand as Conservatives at the next election if they wish. That will not extend to half a dozen including Grieve and Gauke. It will be hinted that if they STFU, they might still be offered a peerage. Maybe.
7. Brexit is confirmed as happening by 31st October, even though the nuts and bolts will take until 31st December to get through the House. Boris claims this counts as leaving by 31st October. He has done; he does not need to die.
8. The election will not happen until the final Brexit nuts and bolts have passed into legislation. Just in case. But Boris gets a significant bounce for Having Made It All Stop. The Brexit Party plunges to 4%, failing to gather any weight of opinion to carry on the fight.
Boris goes into the election having effectively beaten down both EU-philes and EU-phobes. The Conservative Party looks more united - and easier to manage - than at any point in the past three decades. A healthy majority is Boris's reward.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
If the Belfast agreement is an impediment to the UK leaving the EU, is not a proposed Northern Ireland only backstop not a future problem for the EU?
If at a later date, Ireland wanted to join Schengen, it couldn’t as the CTA and the NI backstop would allow passport free access to British citizens to enter EU member states?
Yes and yes. The GFA/BA is an elaborate fudge designed quite rightly to bring peace. Moving any element of it will cause a further problem unless the further movement is towards a united Ireland, all either in or out of the EU, or a united Ireland and Great Britain (the New Zealand solution to having two big islands close to one another) either all in or all out of EU. Don't hold your breath. Apart from 800 years of tragic history the latter solution is so obvious it hardly needs comment, except that it is presented to us by the happenstance of tectonic plate movements. Where are Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King them you need them? For the moment the issue is not 'Will change cause problems?' but 'Who is holding the baby when the music temporarily stops?'
While the SNP agitate for separation. The joy of joined up thinking (not yours, Politicians and Nationalists)
You cretin , there is no separation , it just means we become a normal independent country. You arsehole unionists like to make it sound as bad as you can, down to the yellow streak as you run scared of being left on your own as a petty xenophobic backwater.
I oppose a border on the island of Ireland and I oppose a border on the island of Britain.
Bit late with Ireland ...
What's the Republic done, that you wish Arlene on it?
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
Wonder when the Withdrawal Agreement will be passed. Could be this year, at a pinch, but I still think Q1 2020.
Whenever it is, I would like to make again an observation I made back at MV2 time - when something is inevitable it is good practice to embrace it rather than faff around for ages pretending that it can be avoided.
The main impact of all the nonsense of the last few months is that we will feel bad when we do the deal. We will feel small - 'defeated' even - when there was no absolutely need for us to feel that way.
How much better to have talked UP the deal when it was agreed, pronounced it a triumph, and passed it in a spirit of zesty bonhomie.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
Wonder when the Withdrawal Agreement will be passed. Could be this year, at a pinch, but I still think Q1 2020.
Whenever it is, I would like to make again an observation I made back at MV2 time - when something is inevitable it is good practice to embrace it rather than faff around for ages pretending that it can be avoided.
The main impact of all the nonsense of the last few months is that we will feel bad when we do the deal. We will feel small - 'defeated' even - when there was no absolutely need for us to feel that way.
How much better to have talked UP the deal when it was agreed, pronounced it a triumph, and passed it in a spirit of zesty bonhomie.
V good point. Was thinking similarly but you phrase it better.
We have to stop beating ourselves up. IF and when we ever Brexit, we will have achieved something very difficult, something many said was impossible, and something which was designed, legally, to be offputtingly painful.
It would have tested any polity to near destruction. But we did it. If we do it.
And on that vaguely positive note, I’m off to have breakfast. Anon.
We sure do. You threatened me with violence a few hours ago, and I think what you said falls foul of the malicious communications act. I don't quite understand why you haven't been banned from this place for that.
Apparently it's an arcane PB rule that licence on saying any old outrageous shit when pished applies to all incarnations of certain individuals. The UK constitution has nothing on this place.
I would have thought that level of threatening communications would have been dealt with swiftly... apparently subsamples are out, but terror threats are in? Hmm
At least with our supreme court you can't instantly work out that Thomas will side with the GOP and Ginsberg with the liberals
On the other hand, in our parliament the decisions of the Speaker on the issue of the day have become every bit as partisan and predictable as the actions of the Speakers in the US Congress. His latest threat to tear up the parliamentary rule book is surprising only in so much as he is asking us to believe that he hasn't already done so.
@MattW said "- It is fundamental to eg Extinction Rebellion that their personal opinions are so important that they are above the law to commit eg aggravated trespass."
I think you do not understand the concept of civil disobedience. The activists do not think they are above the law, but they do consider breaking the law a legitimate form of protest, including arrest and trials.
Indeed in the spring XR protest part of the plan was to get arrested and thereby overwhelm the system. They were fairly effective at that, and will be more skilled in the October protests.
I have had some civil disobedience training in conjunction with anti-militarist protests, it is very helpful to know when to move, when not to, and what your rights are if arrested.
On "civil disobedience" - I pretty much agree with your definition. However, the pre-written "statements to police" on arrest of ER do actually claim that some laws should be disobeyed - which is exactly placing a personal view above the law.
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. "
But having debated this with various ER activists, I think they also seek to obfuscate between 'civil disobedience' ,'peaceful protest', 'non violent protest', and claims around human rights, eg the ECHR, and to avoid admitting that a good deal of the stuff is actually criminal - aggravated trespass or similar. It is quite possible for a 'peaceful protest' also to be an aggravated trespass.
The Lord Mayor's speech invasion (though Greenpeace not ER), for example, or closing down a Tesco, is criminal.
Pointing this out seems to get diversionary ("it is peaceful") or utilitarian ("it won't work otherwise") answers.
That they do not seem to understand or personally model their stuff on climate change is just embarrassing. More is achieved by the people going around simply insulating houses.
If the Belfast agreement is an impediment to the UK leaving the EU, is not a proposed Northern Ireland only backstop not a future problem for the EU?
If at a later date, Ireland wanted to join Schengen, it couldn’t as the CTA and the NI backstop would allow passport free access to British citizens to enter EU member states?
Yes and yes. The GFA/BA is an elaborate fudge designed quite rightly to bring peace. Moving any element of it will cause a further problem unless the further movement is towards a united Ireland, all either in or out of the EU, or a united Ireland and Great Britain (the New Zealand solution to having two big islands close to one another) either all in or all out of EU. Don't hold your breath. Apart from 800 years of tragic history the latter solution is so obvious it hardly needs comment, except that it is presented to us by the happenstance of tectonic plate movements. Where are Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King them you need them? For the moment the issue is not 'Will change cause problems?' but 'Who is holding the baby when the music temporarily stops?'
While the SNP agitate for separation. The joy of joined up thinking (not yours, Politicians and Nationalists)
You cretin , there is no separation , it just means we become a normal independent country. You arsehole unionists like to make it sound as bad as you can, down to the yellow streak as you run scared of being left on your own as a petty xenophobic backwater.
I oppose a border on the island of Ireland and I oppose a border on the island of Britain.
Bit late with Ireland ...
What's the Republic done, that you wish Arlene on it?
No, I just meant there was already a border in Ireland so it was a bit late to oppose one. Though I suppose the previous poster might well be asked that question.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
Funny how he was holding talks while Parliament was in recess, engaged constantly with Parliament while Parliament was trying to hamstring him [and people here were saying what is he doing talking to Parliament rather than Europe] and then when Parliament is prorogued he's back hold talks again.
There have only ever been three UKIP MPs. Have any of them ever been assaulted?
Who is the third? (Reckless, Carswell...... are we counting Bill Cash from a few years ago when it wasn't clear what his status was?)
Bob Spink was it - from Castle Point or somewhere like that in Essex
Yes, I remember him. IIRC he was only briefly ukip as he stood as an independent who was opposed to something in the following GE. It might have been opposition to building on greenbelt?
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
Funny how he was holding talks while Parliament was in recess, engaged constantly with Parliament while Parliament was trying to hamstring him [and people here were saying what is he doing talking to Parliament rather than Europe] and then when Parliament is prorogued he's back hold talks again.
Yep since the morons in Westminster have been locked out things are clearly starting to move.
Labour will be in terrible trouble if Johnson manages to get a deal.
With the right wing press lauding it and if the ERG get behind it all of a sudden the NI backstop which will be the same thing but just had its name changed will be the best thing ever .
Labour know if a deal gets through Johnson will see a surge in support, if he gets a deal but it’s voted down a GE will see his mantra as the opposition blocking Brexit more powerful than ever .
The opposition know their best chance is no deal being agreed and an extension .
Those 'if's are doing a lot of work there.
A deal is his obvious play. Falling off a log easy. As we have seen, this sh&t just got real and if he brings a deal back to the house. May's deal rolled in glitter, for example, then every MP who votes against it can be charged with wanting no deal. Which is of course their right, if they are Mark Francois and have been advocating no deal all along. But not if they are Lab MPs who are apparently dedicated to no no deal.
But they are screwed if there is no further extension offered by the EU. Then it is No Deal or Boris's Deal. Whatcher gonna do, Labour?
The EU are reportedly worried as to whether Boris could get a deal through Parliament. It is falling off a log easy - if they give no further extension. All of the Remainer No Deal hand-wringing has made it certain.
I have asked and asked politicians on Twitter in Denmark not to offer any more decision making time - there is a deal to be had - May's deal or some variation of it but that's it - the EU really need to stop arsing about now - revoking might suit a few people in the UK but it solves none of the EUs brexit problems - same with a referendum - another close result means at some point yet another A50 process - the Uk has had long enough to discuss things, there is a deal -
the EU should be very firm about this imho and let every UK MP know they can have a deal or leave on 31st October without one. No third way. Can't stop a UK PM revoking before the 31st October but EU can make it clear they don't want that and intend to 'clarify' treaty opt outs etc and use all the sort of shennanigans british politicians have during the A50 process - 'creative' treaty interpretation anyone?
The stuff at the SC is fascinating. I am not a lawyer, but from what I can tell the convention is that no region of law is more important than another when it comes to constitutional matters. So whereas you may have a contract that is acceptable to English law but not Scottish law, and vis versa, you could still have that contract for the region the law found it acceptable, in constitutional matters if one legal tradition finds something unacceptable it is unacceptable in all the regions.
This is why we can't just say "well the English and NI courts say it's fine, so it will probably be fine, the Scots are just kicking up a fuss" because the Scotch law tradition is so different that the SC may say this is acceptable constitutionally under English and NI law but not in Scotch law and therefore it must be held void even so. The government have to convince all three traditions they are in the right to succeed, loss in one means parliament comes back.
Rutland is on the same oolite belt that runs through the Cotswolds, though a little more iron makes the stone a bit darker. It's also the source of the hideously expensive Collyweston slate that is being used to reroof the seventeenth century Old Court of my alma mater. @JackW must have seen the original roof go on.
The stuff at the SC is fascinating. I am not a lawyer, but from what I can tell the convention is that no region of law is more important than another when it comes to constitutional matters. So whereas you may have a contract that is acceptable to English law but not Scottish law, and vis versa, you could still have that contract for the region the law found it acceptable, in constitutional matters if one legal tradition finds something unacceptable it is unacceptable in all the regions.
This is why we can't just say "well the English and NI courts say it's fine, so it will probably be fine, the Scots are just kicking up a fuss" because the Scotch law tradition is so different that the SC may say this is acceptable constitutionally under English and NI law but not in Scotch law and therefore it must be held void even so. The government have to convince all three traditions they are in the right to succeed, loss in one means parliament comes back.
Try reading Craig: Prorogation. Three Assumptions .
That’s an excellent explanation regarding the constitution .
The stuff at the SC is fascinating. I am not a lawyer, but from what I can tell the convention is that no region of law is more important than another when it comes to constitutional matters. So whereas you may have a contract that is acceptable to English law but not Scottish law, and vis versa, you could still have that contract for the region the law found it acceptable, in constitutional matters if one legal tradition finds something unacceptable it is unacceptable in all the regions.
This is why we can't just say "well the English and NI courts say it's fine, so it will probably be fine, the Scots are just kicking up a fuss" because the Scotch law tradition is so different that the SC may say this is acceptable constitutionally under English and NI law but not in Scotch law and therefore it must be held void even so. The government have to convince all three traditions they are in the right to succeed, loss in one means parliament comes back.
I think this is key, but Docherty found the matter not justiciable in the Scottish Court system too even though he was overruled there by the higher court.
Also the Gov't clearly wishes to get a Queens Speech in now, so it's a bit of an odd place if it is unable to even attempt to present that.
By that measure ERG should have the whip withdrawn as they are unlikley to back any type of deal...
That will be the quid pro quo for Boris removing the whip from the 21. Sauce for the goose and all that. And if No Deal really is the only alternative, they will cut lonely figures in the division lobby. For what?
Nah, Baker apart, they'll probably see if they can stay members if they just abstain. To be told no.
I know most on here think I'm just talking bollocks, but I see a scenario where:
1. Boris gets a one-minute-to-midnight deal with the heads of the 27 (Barnier having been cut adrift). To get the deal through, they agree that there should be no further extension of the deadline.
2. The DUP get bought off. Grumpy, but will not vote the deal down. As the DUP default setting is grumpy, no-one can tell the difference.
3. The ERG are told support the deal, or lose the whip.
4. Corbyn can't allow No Deal, but can't be seen to implement Brexit. He whips for an abstention, to stop a wholesale defection of his Leave-seat MPs voting for the Deal. It guarantees the Boris Deal will pass.
5. SNP, Greens, LibDems, PC vote against any form of Brexit. Safe in the knowledge that Labour will ensure they aren't risking actually facilitating a No Deal Brexit.
6. Some of the 21 are told they will have the Whip returned and can stand as Conservatives at the next election if they wish. That will not extend to half a dozen including Grieve and Gauke. It will be hinted that if they STFU, they might still be offered a peerage. Maybe.
7. Brexit is confirmed as happening by 31st October, even though the nuts and bolts will take until 31st December to get through the House. Boris claims this counts as leaving by 31st October. He has done; he does not need to die.
8. The election will not happen until the final Brexit nuts and bolts have passed into legislation. Just in case. But Boris gets a significant bounce for Having Made It All Stop. The Brexit Party plunges to 4%, failing to gather any weight of opinion to carry on the fight.
Boris goes into the election having effectively beaten down both EU-philes and EU-phobes. The Conservative Party looks more united - and easier to manage - than at any point in the past three decades. A healthy majority is Boris's reward.
Since this is supposedly a betting site, I would recommend not committing any money on any of those 8 predictions.
Rutland is a wonderful slice of England. Full of lovely villages and in Oakham and Uppingham they have two splendid small towns.
Well worth a visit.
Keep quiet about it please! Half of it's charm is most people don't know about it. It is the Cotswolds without the crowds of Londoners.
Whilst it's not quite in Rutland, I always think Stamford is like Oxford or Cambridge but without the horrible students (and tourists).
+1
Agree. Stamford just in Lincolnshire, but don't tell anyone how wonderful that whole county is.
While not questioning the loveliness of the place (love the half-submerged church and old roads leading into the reservoir), how has the county council survived ten years of austerity as a unitary with a population of fewer than 40,000? I know of areas with 3 or 4 times that population where mergers have been mooted. Fair play to them if they've managed to balance the books.
I am only guessing here but... does it have very few areas of deprivation?
I'm sure it does.. but a lot of other rural authorities struggle with older than average populations, sparsity and consequent school transport costs etc. And social care especially is crippling them. I just wondered whether they'd gone down the road of shared contracting etc with neighbouring authorities.
The stuff at the SC is fascinating. I am not a lawyer, but from what I can tell the convention is that no region of law is more important than another when it comes to constitutional matters. So whereas you may have a contract that is acceptable to English law but not Scottish law, and vis versa, you could still have that contract for the region the law found it acceptable, in constitutional matters if one legal tradition finds something unacceptable it is unacceptable in all the regions.
This is why we can't just say "well the English and NI courts say it's fine, so it will probably be fine, the Scots are just kicking up a fuss" because the Scotch law tradition is so different that the SC may say this is acceptable constitutionally under English and NI law but not in Scotch law and therefore it must be held void even so. The government have to convince all three traditions they are in the right to succeed, loss in one means parliament comes back.
Yes, my understanding (very much stand to be corrected and, no doubt, will be) is that Supreme Court can only "overrule" Scottish Court in the sense of deciding whether it has interpreted Scottish law correctly. If the three Scottish judges have acted reasonably in the view of the Supreme Court then who knows where we end up in terms of the prorogation.
The stuff at the SC is fascinating. I am not a lawyer, but from what I can tell the convention is that no region of law is more important than another when it comes to constitutional matters. So whereas you may have a contract that is acceptable to English law but not Scottish law, and vis versa, you could still have that contract for the region the law found it acceptable, in constitutional matters if one legal tradition finds something unacceptable it is unacceptable in all the regions.
This is why we can't just say "well the English and NI courts say it's fine, so it will probably be fine, the Scots are just kicking up a fuss" because the Scotch law tradition is so different that the SC may say this is acceptable constitutionally under English and NI law but not in Scotch law and therefore it must be held void even so. The government have to convince all three traditions they are in the right to succeed, loss in one means parliament comes back.
I think this is key, but Docherty found the matter not justiciable in the Scottish Court system too even though he was overruled there by the higher court.
Also the Gov't clearly wishes to get a Queens Speech in now, so it's a bit of an odd place if it is unable to even attempt to present that.
That’s an issue . If the SC strike down the suspension , it’s possible Johnson could ask for another .
It could be that they rule against the Scottish decision but say at the same time the Commons needs to address the issue with a new restriction of the RP in that area .
I think the odds favour a win for the government , the original Gina Miller case was much stronger .
We've heard of terrible problems for labour on this for years but they seem to be getting their way in that it will be remain or their deal when they get one.
Rutland is a wonderful slice of England. Full of lovely villages and in Oakham and Uppingham they have two splendid small towns.
Well worth a visit.
Keep quiet about it please! Half of it's charm is most people don't know about it. It is the Cotswolds without the crowds of Londoners.
Whilst it's not quite in Rutland, I always think Stamford is like Oxford or Cambridge but without the horrible students (and tourists).
+1
Agree. Stamford just in Lincolnshire, but don't tell anyone how wonderful that whole county is.
While not questioning the loveliness of the place (love the half-submerged church and old roads leading into the reservoir), how has the county council survived ten years of austerity as a unitary with a population of fewer than 40,000? I know of areas with 3 or 4 times that population where mergers have been mooted. Fair play to them if they've managed to balance the books.
I am only guessing here but... does it have very few areas of deprivation?
I'm sure it does.. but a lot of other rural authorities struggle with older than average populations, sparsity and consequent school transport costs etc. And social care especially is crippling them. I just wondered whether they'd gone down the road of shared contracting etc with neighbouring authorities.
It is a drop of extremely affluent towns and villages in amongst areas of high deprivation (Melton, Grantham, Peterborough). It comes under Leics NHS. Not looked through the accounts but average earnings would be I imagine at the top decile in the UK while it benefits from the nearby infrastructure of surrounding towns and cities.
Funny how he was holding talks while Parliament was in recess, engaged constantly with Parliament while Parliament was trying to hamstring him [and people here were saying what is he doing talking to Parliament rather than Europe] and then when Parliament is prorogued he's back hold talks again.
Indeed.
If the EU do offer something better to the UK than May's Surrender Agreement, it will only be if they still consider that in the absence of a new offer there will be a significantly increased risk that the UK will otherwise leave without having signed up to a comprehensive deal at that point. That is the outcome they fear whether it happens before or after 31st October.
The potential for Johnson to get us out in such a scenario by 31st October has clearly been all but removed by the actions of parliament and so weakened the UK's position greatly. However, the EU may still be worried that if they do not offer Johnson anything, he will be able to win a VONC in Corbyn within days of Corbyn becoming PM, after which Johnson could win a working majority in parliament that would make his threat real at a later date of 31st December or whenever.
The chances of Johnson gaining a working majority, assuming that the EU offers nothing more of substance, is I suggest no more than about 1 in 3 at the moment. The EU's assessment may be different but will change with the opinion polls, so I don't think they will offer anything quite yet. Will a 1 in 3 risk to the EU be enough for Johnson to bring something back at the 11th hour?
They really do just want to be the Brexit Party - they are more defensive of it and loyal to it than they are to the Conservstive Party
If they agree a pact it will toxify the Conservatives to the remainery/soft-brexity/pro-business block for a decade. Corbyn will not be around for ever, and when normal service is resumed on the left they're going to be in power for a very long time.
Rutland is a wonderful slice of England. Full of lovely villages and in Oakham and Uppingham they have two splendid small towns.
Well worth a visit.
Keep quiet about it please! Half of it's charm is most people don't know about it. It is the Cotswolds without the crowds of Londoners.
Whilst it's not quite in Rutland, I always think Stamford is like Oxford or Cambridge but without the horrible students (and tourists).
+1
Agree. Stamford just in Lincolnshire, but don't tell anyone how wonderful that whole county is.
While not questioning the loveliness of the place (love the half-submerged church and old roads leading into the reservoir), how has the county council survived ten years of austerity as a unitary with a population of fewer than 40,000? I know of areas with 3 or 4 times that population where mergers have been mooted. Fair play to them if they've managed to balance the books.
I am only guessing here but... does it have very few areas of deprivation?
I'm sure it does.. but a lot of other rural authorities struggle with older than average populations, sparsity and consequent school transport costs etc. And social care especially is crippling them. I just wondered whether they'd gone down the road of shared contracting etc with neighbouring authorities.
It is a drop of extremely affluent towns and villages in amongst areas of high deprivation (Melton, Grantham, Peterborough). It comes under Leics NHS. Not looked through the accounts but average earnings would be I imagine at the top decile in the UK while it benefits from the nearby infrastructure of surrounding towns and cities.
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any evidence to support your assertion that there is more nastiness on one side or the other. Indeed your claim itself is really part of the problem. In my view both Pullman and the person shown upthread should both be prosecuted for incitement to violence along with anyone else who makes such suggestions.
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
You’re condoning spitting at people with different political views? Clearly the Rioja is still coursing through your veins. I’d recommend sleeping it off.
Not condoning it. Saying he should have expected it. If you wear a badge saying “your vote should be cancelled” then people who voted that way are going to be very very offended. Stop being disingenuous.
So he was asking for it?
Absolutely. He wore a deliberately provocative and offensive badge. People were provoked and offended. He was literally asking for it. He wanted to annoy. Otherwise why wear it?
If it was for him to feel superior they played into his hands then. Good job.
Spitting at opponents, even if they are twats, instantly makes someone worse. A lot of people on left and right should consider that - it's wrong even if the person is Farage, Corbyn or Boris.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
Why are they doing that? Does the import of the case require more judges? I presume not. So why?!
Originally the newest judges weren’t going to sit.
The 9 were the ones with most experience. The key judge is Lady Hale being the President .
I can understand though that having 11 might be better as it makes any judgement have more authority .
The more judges the more judgements, including those in the dissenting minority (which is not unlikely, as there was in the Article 50 case). Comparing majority and dissenting judgements is of great interest in big cases to the lawyers/academics in the field. Big cases of this sort are rare, so it is Christmas and birthday all rolled into one for some academic lawyers. Brexit is a gift which keeps on giving in many fields. (And it will enable some poor starving QCs and their instructing solicitors to stave off the bailiffs for another week and put a pound coin in their flickering gas meters).
Rutland is a wonderful slice of England. Full of lovely villages and in Oakham and Uppingham they have two splendid small towns.
Well worth a visit.
Keep quiet about it please! Half of it's charm is most people don't know about it. It is the Cotswolds without the crowds of Londoners.
Whilst it's not quite in Rutland, I always think Stamford is like Oxford or Cambridge but without the horrible students (and tourists).
+1
Agree. Stamford just in Lincolnshire, but don't tell anyone how wonderful that whole county is.
While not questioning the loveliness of the place (love the half-submerged church and old roads leading into the reservoir), how has the county council survived ten years of austerity as a unitary with a population of fewer than 40,000? I know of areas with 3 or 4 times that population where mergers have been mooted. Fair play to them if they've managed to balance the books.
I am only guessing here but... does it have very few areas of deprivation?
I'm sure it does.. but a lot of other rural authorities struggle with older than average populations, sparsity and consequent school transport costs etc. And social care especially is crippling them. I just wondered whether they'd gone down the road of shared contracting etc with neighbouring authorities.
It is a drop of extremely affluent towns and villages in amongst areas of high deprivation (Melton, Grantham, Peterborough). It comes under Leics NHS. Not looked through the accounts but average earnings would be I imagine at the top decile in the UK while it benefits from the nearby infrastructure of surrounding towns and cities.
Labour will be in terrible trouble if Johnson manages to get a deal.
With the right wing press lauding it and if the ERG get behind it all of a sudden the NI backstop which will be the same thing but just had its name changed will be the best thing ever .
Labour know if a deal gets through Johnson will see a surge in support, if he gets a deal but it’s voted down a GE will see his mantra as the opposition blocking Brexit more powerful than ever .
The opposition know their best chance is no deal being agreed and an extension .
But the public is also shrewd enough to know that any extension is just Labour delaying the point where they get that whacking. And the public don't want an extension.
The public say they dont want one but enough of them want outcomes which require an extension.
The stuff at the SC is fascinating. I am not a lawyer, but from what I can tell the convention is that no region of law is more important than another when it comes to constitutional matters. So whereas you may have a contract that is acceptable to English law but not Scottish law, and vis versa, you could still have that contract for the region the law found it acceptable, in constitutional matters if one legal tradition finds something unacceptable it is unacceptable in all the regions.
This is why we can't just say "well the English and NI courts say it's fine, so it will probably be fine, the Scots are just kicking up a fuss" because the Scotch law tradition is so different that the SC may say this is acceptable constitutionally under English and NI law but not in Scotch law and therefore it must be held void even so. The government have to convince all three traditions they are in the right to succeed, loss in one means parliament comes back.
Comments
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4lav01m6zl/PlaidCymruResults_190910_Independence_W.pdf
Some differences there - but smaller than I'd expected - and the order changes when the post-Brexit condition is added. However, I don't know enough about the demography of each area to interpret them.
(Ok I appreciate he never came out but...)
People are allowed to have different views, wear badges etc without being assaulted.
That tweet with Farage in the sights of a gun is appalling. I can't stand the man but no-one should be sending stuff like that out.
It is a problem, albeit a somewhat minor one, that most people in the EU don't know who these people are, though you'd no doubt complain if the EU spent money sending information leaflets to every voter.
The EU are reportedly worried as to whether Boris could get a deal through Parliament. It is falling off a log easy - if they give no further extension. All of the Remainer No Deal hand-wringing has made it certain.
I am going to hoard this comment, and keep it for darker moments. I will then carefully read it, word by word, when I need a burst of sardonic hilarity to illuminate the gloom.
I fear that - having named the original 9 - this is taking an unnecessary risk. If the two additional justices swing the result from one result to another (and I have no idea how any of them are likely to rule) there will be outrage. Unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless.
Statistically, if we model each judge as giving an independent 50-50 verdict, the chances of a 6-5 outcome are 45%. In those instances, the chance that the two additional judges are both in the majority is 27%, giving an overall probability of 12% of this outcome. Clearly this is a simplified model!
OTOH it is very possible that these two additional judges might turn a narrow 5-4 or even 6-3 verdict into a much more comprehensive 7-4 or 8-3.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1172440350255828992
Not condoning it. Saying he should have expected it. If you wear a badge saying “your vote should be cancelled” then people who voted that way are going to be very very offended. Stop being disingenuous.
Perhaps you should publish an Atlas of safe areas where Remain supporters can go out in public. Maybe with isobars of Leaviness, with a steadily deepening colour marking the descent to Deliverance.
Right now No Deal Leavers are advocating a course of action that plays ducks and drakes with critical medical supplies and the worst that someone wearing a Brexit party badge could reasonably expect in inner London is conspicuous eye-rolling. Perhaps the moral panic about public disorder needs to be inverted.
This is nonsense. UKIP MPs were regularly assaulted. Tory activists were spat at in their Manchester conference. This crap has been happening for years but it’s always been directed at the right, so you didn’t notice, or you condoned it.
Diane James, then UKIP leader, being spat at in a London mainline station.
Nah, Baker apart, they'll probably see if they can stay members if they just abstain. To be told no.
I know most on here think I'm just talking bollocks, but I see a scenario where:
1. Boris gets a one-minute-to-midnight deal with the heads of the 27 (Barnier having been cut adrift). To get the deal through, they agree that there should be no further extension of the deadline.
2. The DUP get bought off. Grumpy, but will not vote the deal down. As the DUP default setting is grumpy, no-one can tell the difference.
3. The ERG are told support the deal, or lose the whip.
4. Corbyn can't allow No Deal, but can't be seen to implement Brexit. He whips for an abstention, to stop a wholesale defection of his Leave-seat MPs voting for the Deal. It guarantees the Boris Deal will pass.
5. SNP, Greens, LibDems, PC vote against any form of Brexit. Safe in the knowledge that Labour will ensure they aren't risking actually facilitating a No Deal Brexit.
6. Some of the 21 are told they will have the Whip returned and can stand as Conservatives at the next election if they wish. That will not extend to half a dozen including Grieve and Gauke. It will be hinted that if they STFU, they might still be offered a peerage. Maybe.
7. Brexit is confirmed as happening by 31st October, even though the nuts and bolts will take until 31st December to get through the House. Boris claims this counts as leaving by 31st October. He has done; he does not need to die.
8. The election will not happen until the final Brexit nuts and bolts have passed into legislation. Just in case. But Boris gets a significant bounce for Having Made It All Stop. The Brexit Party plunges to 4%, failing to gather any weight of opinion to carry on the fight.
Boris goes into the election having effectively beaten down both EU-philes and EU-phobes. The Conservative Party looks more united - and easier to manage - than at any point in the past three decades. A healthy majority is Boris's reward.
Whenever it is, I would like to make again an observation I made back at MV2 time - when something is inevitable it is good practice to embrace it rather than faff around for ages pretending that it can be avoided.
The main impact of all the nonsense of the last few months is that we will feel bad when we do the deal. We will feel small - 'defeated' even - when there was no absolutely need for us to feel that way.
How much better to have talked UP the deal when it was agreed, pronounced it a triumph, and passed it in a spirit of zesty bonhomie.
Is the Brexiteers problem that Europe is too full of migrants, or that they are not being appointed as Commissioners?
There are now a more varied mix of MEPs, so just a matter of time, and not all diversity is visible, such as this recent meeting:
https://twitter.com/MLDBanks/status/1171078669529493506?s=19
We have to stop beating ourselves up. IF and when we ever Brexit, we will have achieved something very difficult, something many said was impossible, and something which was designed, legally, to be offputtingly painful.
It would have tested any polity to near destruction. But we did it. If we do it.
And on that vaguely positive note, I’m off to have breakfast. Anon.
Missed this reply earlier - thanks. On "civil disobedience" - I pretty much agree with your definition. However, the pre-written "statements to police" on arrest of ER do actually claim that some laws should be disobeyed - which is exactly placing a personal view above the law.
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. "
But having debated this with various ER activists, I think they also seek to obfuscate between 'civil disobedience' ,'peaceful protest', 'non violent protest', and claims around human rights, eg the ECHR, and to avoid admitting that a good deal of the stuff is actually criminal - aggravated trespass or similar. It is quite possible for a 'peaceful protest' also to be an aggravated trespass.
The Lord Mayor's speech invasion (though Greenpeace not ER), for example, or closing down a Tesco, is criminal.
Pointing this out seems to get diversionary ("it is peaceful") or utilitarian ("it won't work otherwise") answers.
That they do not seem to understand or personally model their stuff on climate change is just embarrassing. More is achieved by the people going around simply insulating houses.
The 9 were the ones with most experience. The key judge is Lady Hale being the President .
I can understand though that having 11 might be better as it makes any judgement have more authority .
They have to judge the case on what happened in the run up to the suspension .
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/13/heathrow-protests-two-held-near-airport-as-activists-threaten-drone-disruption
Hopefully.
the EU should be very firm about this imho and let every UK MP know they can have a deal or leave on 31st October without one. No third way. Can't stop a UK PM revoking before the 31st October but EU can make it clear they don't want that and intend to 'clarify' treaty opt outs etc and use all the sort of shennanigans british politicians have during the A50 process - 'creative' treaty interpretation anyone?
This is why we can't just say "well the English and NI courts say it's fine, so it will probably be fine, the Scots are just kicking up a fuss" because the Scotch law tradition is so different that the SC may say this is acceptable constitutionally under English and NI law but not in Scotch law and therefore it must be held void even so. The government have to convince all three traditions they are in the right to succeed, loss in one means parliament comes back.
That’s an excellent explanation regarding the constitution .
Also the Gov't clearly wishes to get a Queens Speech in now, so it's a bit of an odd place if it is unable to even attempt to present that.
It could be that they rule against the Scottish decision but say at the same time the Commons needs to address the issue with a new restriction of the RP in that area .
I think the odds favour a win for the government , the original Gina Miller case was much stronger .
Easy
If the EU do offer something better to the UK than May's Surrender Agreement, it will only be if they still consider that in the absence of a new offer there will be a significantly increased risk that the UK will otherwise leave without having signed up to a comprehensive deal at that point. That is the outcome they fear whether it happens before or after 31st October.
The potential for Johnson to get us out in such a scenario by 31st October has clearly been all but removed by the actions of parliament and so weakened the UK's position greatly. However, the EU may still be worried that if they do not offer Johnson anything, he will be able to win a VONC in Corbyn within days of Corbyn becoming PM, after which Johnson could win a working majority in parliament that would make his threat real at a later date of 31st December or whenever.
The chances of Johnson gaining a working majority, assuming that the EU offers nothing more of substance, is I suggest no more than about 1 in 3 at the moment. The EU's assessment may be different but will change with the opinion polls, so I don't think they will offer anything quite yet. Will a 1 in 3 risk to the EU be enough for Johnson to bring something back at the 11th hour?
Spitting at opponents, even if they are twats, instantly makes someone worse. A lot of people on left and right should consider that - it's wrong even if the person is Farage, Corbyn or Boris.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless