Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
It’s a hard case to call. I’m very suspicious about anyone who is confident on either side. If pushed, I’d be less surprised by a government victory, I think.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson
Defending
I’m not
I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.
One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock anl
Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were pnd got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
Yes, but that's all small potatoes. The fundamental problem for decades was the Europhobic wing of the Conservative Party. It was never properly addressed and ended up infecting us all.
This is an age-old europhile trope though, still being trotted out today, which is in the dog-ate-my-homework category of excuses.
The splits in the Conservative party reflect the split in the country. It arose due to the federalist direction the EU took after the late 80s and the fact that, amongst the electorate as a whole, there was disquiet about it amongst a vocal minority who had no obvious parliamentary representation.
It’s the symptom not the cause. If it hadn’t been the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party, another political outlet would have been found.
Europe didn't figure as a major issue in the voting public before 2014. It was largely a niche (conservative) talking point. The reasons for the explosion of interest can be debated, but it doesn't coincide with the "late 80s", Maastricht, the eastern European enlargement, or the Lisbon Treaty.
Maastricht threw up a lot of interest in Europe, mainly as a proxy for the left to attack the Tory government but nonetheless it was a major issue for that time, and was followed by the Tory EU civil war which cost them swathes of support mid nineties and thus was again a big national issue.
Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
I've more experiences with Brits (and others living in Thailand). Expats is OK..... perhaps mildly pejorative, but only very mildly. Farang, the Thai term for Caucasians can be a bit more doubtful. It's more expensive though; the 'farang price' is always at least double the Thai!
I don't particularly like the word "expat" but I don't take offence at people using it. As with most words, how insulting it is is determined by the other words around it.
My (slight) issue is that it sounds like an "expat" used to be patriotic but is no longer, but there is no reason to assume that patriotism decreases, just because someone moves overseas.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.
One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
Really?
Camerons big failing was he couldnt do party management.
Cameron got an E, while May got an F for party management. But neither lost over 20 MPs within 2 months of becoming PM.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
Perhaps they should be called “expatriots”?
Would that make them "ex-scoundrels"?
After all "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson, April 1775
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
They are both cowards.
Is this what Eton instills: a sense that if things get too tough just walk away - your privilege and wealth will ensure you survive just fine, and f*ck everyone else?
I don't think you can blame the school for that. Character is determined long before the age of 13.
Right wingers who extol the virtues of national service or harsh prison sentences seem to think otherwise.
It's a bit chicken and egg.
People who are good at politics*, tend to get to the top. People who are privileged and have connections and money backing them, get to the top. Eton is not necessary, it's sufficient.
Surely if the Supreme Court rules it WAS illegal in Scotland but not illegal in England and Wales so therefore illegal in the whole of the UK we might finally confront the much vaunted constitutional crisis.
I'm struggling to understand the high court judgment that as it was a 'political' decision it's not a matter for the courts. What if the government chose to suspend parliament indefinitely? At the same time I don't understand the court of session judgment either.
If anyone has broken the law it must surely be Her Majesty. It's her prerogative.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
We already have the best deal. We have access to the Single Market, membership of the Customs Union, and free movement of people.
My Earlsfield Moment this morning was thinking I'd trust an LD Government to manage Brexit, I'd trust a Conservative Government to introduce a radical Marxist economic policy and I'd trust a Labour Government to cut taxes and be pro-business.
Sometimes it's easier to do the things you don't want to do than the things you do and in politics if you get the ideological fervour out of the way and offer the counter-intuitive task without the naivete you might find the Party in Government more able to approach the task unromantically and more aware of the downsides.
Just a thought on a crowded train on a fine autumn morning.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
But you can get broadband from a number of competitors, such as 02, BT, etc. very easily. Not the case with Brexit.
Surely if the Supreme Court rules it WAS illegal in Scotland but not illegal in England and Wales so therefore illegal in the whole of the UK we might finally confront the much vaunted constitutional crisis.
I'm struggling to understand the high court judgment that as it was a 'political' decision it's not a matter for the courts. What if the government chose to suspend parliament indefinitely? At the same time I don't understand the court of session judgment either.
If anyone has broken the law it must surely be Her Majesty. It's her prerogative.
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
It’s a hard case to call. I’m very suspicious about anyone who is confident on either side. If pushed, I’d be less surprised by a government victory, I think.
I think the most surprising result from here would be a Supreme Court decsion that there was nothing to see here. It's hard ot believe that we will not end up with some guidelines about when prorogations are justified, when they are not and how long they should last. For me, the second most surprising result would be the Scottish decision being upheld - though I can understand why it would be.
Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
I've more experiences with Brits (and others living in Thailand). Expats is OK..... perhaps mildly pejorative, but only very mildly. Farang, the Thai term for Caucasians can be a bit more doubtful. It's more expensive though; the 'farang price' is always at least double the Thai!
I don't particularly like the word "expat" but I don't take offence at people using it. As with most words, how insulting it is is determined by the other words around it.
My (slight) issue is that it sounds like an "expat" used to be patriotic but is no longer, but there is no reason to assume that patriotism decreases, just because someone moves overseas.
I think expat is completely neutral.
Common usage has made it a value judgement; "expat lifestyle" (booze, partner-swapping, luxury living in third world countries) being a case in point.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Mr. Booth, whilst some will go for that angle, it seems odd to me.
If we had a UK-wide decision that was illegal in England, it's illegal for the UK as a whole. If a UK-wide decision is illegal in Scotland, it's illegal in the UK.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
It was not binding. It was advisory. The advice can properly be checked, given that the original prospectus has been comprehensively junked.
I think that is baloney, Alistair. It was acknowledged by both major political as binding, and we voted to leave.
We had some technical legal trolling afterwards. I do not see that that changes the reality.
If you accept that the legal position is not the only thing we look at when deciding the political effect of the referendum, you must accept that the question on the ballot paper is not the only thing we look at when considering what the referendum decided.
The country was vehemently assured by the Leave campaigns that a super duper new deal would be struck effortlessly. They claimed that to suggest otherwise was project fear.
It turns out that the Leave prospectus was fraudulent. So the decision needs to be reopened.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The analogy doesn't hold.
The EU situation is more akin to a marriage, not a transactional relationship. It's akin to a partner saying I'm divorcing you, and if you don't agree to the terms I'm going to sleep under the arches.
Sure, the other partner will worry about the parent of their children, and how they will cope without the maintenance income, but there are other options for them.
Surely if the Supreme Court rules it WAS illegal in Scotland but not illegal in England and Wales so therefore illegal in the whole of the UK we might finally confront the much vaunted constitutional crisis.
I'm struggling to understand the high court judgment that as it was a 'political' decision it's not a matter for the courts. What if the government chose to suspend parliament indefinitely? At the same time I don't understand the court of session judgment either.
If anyone has broken the law it must surely be Her Majesty. It's her prerogative.
I think the issue is that they don't like being lumped in with those other "bad" expatriates, like the retirees sunning themselves in Spain. They want a separate word to describe "good" expatriates, such as UK citizens who work for the EU commission in Brussels.
Krugman: Biden 'doesn't get it'... still thinks he can work with Republicans.
The points Krugman makes about Republicans not believing in democracy are pretty powerful, and it's easy to draw parallels to Johnson on this side of the pond (although IMO Johnson hasn't gone as far... yet?) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/opinion/republicans-democracy.html
I see my earlier picked up a couple of comments. Blair's outstanding success was to convince millions of disillusioned Conservative voters the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Against a divided and exhausted Conservative Party, the miracle is the Tories got as many as 165 seats - it wouldn't have taken much to take them nearer 100.
It's not an easy act to pull - Wilson back in 1964 convinced the country his Labour Party was modern and technocratic and almost non-ideological while Thatcher in 1979 offered what looked a convincing alternative to the Butskellite concensus whose failure had darkened or illuminated the 1970s.
You can't do a volte face - it takes years to convince a sceptical electorate your Party has really changed. Labour's journey back to power started in the mid 80s but Kinnock couldn't complete the journey because of who he was and his political roots. Blair could for the same reasons. Cameron managed to persuade people his Conservative Party had shed its Thatcherite past and was once again a "One Nation" party but even with a global financial crash and 13 years of an exhausted Labour Government, he couldn't win a majority at one election and needed a second.
Take Brexit out of the equation and on issues such as housing and climate change there's probably more cross-party agreement than some might imagine but Brexit dominates to such an extent these important issues and many others have been relegated to the margins.
UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
Yes to the last part and yes the system worked against UKIP. As it worked against all minority parties. The country was asked if it wanted to change the system and it said no (and I would be interested to know the proportion of Kippers who voted for or against that change).
The country was not asked whether it wanted to change the system in general, it was asked whether it wanted AV. Almost nobody wants AV as their first choice (pun not intended).
In practice the AV referendum was a referendum on Clegg. It was his referendum. Everybody hated him. It had little to do with the merits of AV and absolutely nothing to do with the merits of PR.
The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:
Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.
How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
In your opinion. There are others.
Whose else’s opinion could it be?
Do you have any links to the “others”?
I believe Cyclefree provided at least one of them already.
David's opinion seems simply to be that the government's case "is compelling". Mine is simply that is isn't.
This is particular struck me as disingenuous on its face: ...it would be positively inconsistent with Parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers for the courts to devise further constraints on the sittings of Parliament...
Consistent, though, with my opinion (FWTW) that the English court approached the arguments arse about face. I was surprised by the Scottish court's decision, as I think in this particular case, the length of prorogation is just about arguable. On the principle itself, I think they were quite right.
Unlike David but methinks he is blinkered by his Tory/unionist leanings. Though I personally hope he is right as it will once again show that Scotland is treated like carp and an English court can just throw Scottish Law aside. More help for a future independent Scotland.
The UK exports ex-pats who only benefit the countries they go to live in and imports immigrants who suck the lifeblood from the country. We all know this!
Take Brexit out of the equation and on issues such as housing and climate change there's probably more cross-party agreement than some might imagine but Brexit dominates to such an extent these important issues and many others have been relegated to the margins.
That's because the economic argument largely has been settled. A market economy with some regulation, and a welfare safety net. It's the size and power of each that's being debated.
Consequently the other axis, between liberal and authoritarian, inwards or outeards, however you want to name it, has come to the fore.
The Tories (and BXP) have panted their flag firmly on the internal/authoritarian ground
The Lib Dems have taken the opposite stance
Labour? They don't know - and are being forced to choose. Like the Liberals in the 1920s.
Good to see the Guardian editor personally apologised to david Cameron for the appalling editorial the newspaper ran. I wonder if the Sun will extend the same courtesy to Ben Stokes for the utterly shameful story it has published today about his family.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
I think Leavers have two choices. If they want remainers to respect the result and for that result to not be challenged, they need to accommodate the views and opinions of them in implementing the result. Alternatively, if they don't want to and instead wish to pursue an extreme version of Brexit, they can't demand remainers go along with it. It seems what the likes of Brendan O'Neill and his cronies at Spiked wanted was remainers to essentially be a bunch of cucks, go along with an extreme version of Brexit, and should repent for forgiveness for ever having voted remain.
UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
Yes to the last part and yes the system worked against UKIP. As it worked against all minority parties. The country was asked if it wanted to change the system and it said no (and I would be interested to know the proportion of Kippers who voted for or against that change).
The country was not asked whether it wanted to change the system in general, it was asked whether it wanted AV. Almost nobody wants AV as their first choice (pun not intended).
In practice the AV referendum was a referendum on Clegg. It was his referendum. Everybody hated him. It had little to do with the merits of AV and absolutely nothing to do with the merits of PR.
I wanted PR, I would have voted "yes" if PR was on the menu!
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.
One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
Really?
Camerons big failing was he couldnt do party management.
Cameron got an E, while May got an F for party management. But neither lost over 20 MPs within 2 months of becoming PM.
If the 21 hadn't lost the whip, there would now be no meaningful party management at all .
The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:
Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.
How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
In your opinion. There are others.
Whose else’s opinion could it be?
Do you have any links to the “others”?
I believe Cyclefree provided at least one of them already.
David's opinion seems simply to be that the government's case "is compelling". Mine is simply that is isn't.
This is particular struck me as disingenuous on its face: ...it would be positively inconsistent with Parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers for the courts to devise further constraints on the sittings of Parliament...
Consistent, though, with my opinion (FWTW) that the English court approached the arguments arse about face. I was surprised by the Scottish court's decision, as I think in this particular case, the length of prorogation is just about arguable. On the principle itself, I think they were quite right.
Unlike David but methinks he is blinkered by his Tory/unionist leanings. Though I personally hope he is right as it will once again show that Scotland is treated like carp and an English court can just throw Scottish Law aside. More help for a future independent Scotland.
Scotland treat like carp? I think you need to mullet over. Or you'll flounder around.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
Good to see the Guardian editor personally apologised to david Cameron for the appalling editorial the newspaper ran. I wonder if the Sun will extend the same courtesy to Ben Stokes for the utterly shameful story it has published today about his family.
Stokes has issued an absolutely blistering statement quite rightly about the invasion of his family's privacy. Sun being c*nts as ever.
Pannick has just said Parliament "may want to keep a close eye on the negotiation, if any, with other member states".
But we negotiate with the Commission, not the MS, and those negotiations are also done on prerogative powers until they are put before Parliament as MV(insert number here).
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html is perfect. What a shambles the case is though , all the books are printed differently and so no-one knows what page they are on , what an absolute disaster. They could not run a bath.
All this is without today’s hyped ruling by the Supreme Court on the legality of the prorogation.
I doubt we’ll get the ruling today.....unless it’s a lot more clear cut than commentators believe....
"That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament." - Bill of Rights 1688
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
No deal is a nonsense, as it self evidently hurts us more than EU27. They know this. They know we know this too. Hence it's not credible as a negotiating position.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
I think Leavers have two choices. If they want remainers to respect the result and for that result to not be challenged, they need to accommodate the views and opinions of them in implementing the result. Alternatively, if they don't want to and instead wish to pursue an extreme version of Brexit, they can't demand remainers go along with it. It seems what the likes of Brendan O'Neill and his cronies at Spiked wanted was remainers to essentially be a bunch of cucks, go along with an extreme version of Brexit, and should repent for forgiveness for ever having voted remain.
Remain voting MPs were elected on a promise to enact the referendum result, then voted against our PMs agreement with the EU. This is the biggest outrage of the whole shebang.
I see my earlier picked up a couple of comments. Blair's outstanding success was to convince millions of disillusioned Conservative voters the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Against a divided and exhausted Conservative Party, the miracle is the Tories got as many as 165 seats - it wouldn't have taken much to take them nearer 100.
It's not an easy act to pull - Wilson back in 1964 convinced the country his Labour Party was modern and technocratic and almost non-ideological while Thatcher in 1979 offered what looked a convincing alternative to the Butskellite concensus whose failure had darkened or illuminated the 1970s.
You can't do a volte face - it takes years to convince a sceptical electorate your Party has really changed. Labour's journey back to power started in the mid 80s but Kinnock couldn't complete the journey because of who he was and his political roots. Blair could for the same reasons. Cameron managed to persuade people his Conservative Party had shed its Thatcherite past and was once again a "One Nation" party but even with a global financial crash and 13 years of an exhausted Labour Government, he couldn't win a majority at one election and needed a second.
Take Brexit out of the equation and on issues such as housing and climate change there's probably more cross-party agreement than some might imagine but Brexit dominates to such an extent these important issues and many others have been relegated to the margins.
I sort of disagree with the first paragraph.
Of the 4.5 million voters who deserted the Conservatives between 1992-1997, most simply did not vote in the next election.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint pr with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.
One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
Really?
Camerons big failing was he couldnt do party management.
Cameron got an E, while May got an F for party management. But neither lost over 20 MPs within 2 months of becoming PM.
If the 21 hadn't lost the whip, there would now be no meaningful party management at all .
Surely Boris gets an A as the parliamentary party is no longer split on Europe..
Good to see the Guardian editor personally apologised to david Cameron for the appalling editorial the newspaper ran. I wonder if the Sun will extend the same courtesy to Ben Stokes for the utterly shameful story it has published today about his family.
Stokes has issued an absolutely blistering statement quite rightly about the invasion of his family's privacy. Sun being c*nts as ever.
It's totally despicable. I would not want to be the Sun's cricket correspondent right now. It won't just be Stokes refusing to go near him except to tell him to F Off.
I see my earlier picked up a couple of comments. Blair's outstanding success was to convince millions of disillusioned Conservative voters the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Against a divided and exhausted Conservative Party, the miracle is the Tories got as many as 165 seats - it wouldn't have taken much to take them nearer 100.
It's not an easy act to pull - Wilson back in 1964 convinced the country his Labour Party was modern and technocratic and almost non-ideological while Thatcher in 1979 offered what looked a convincing alternative to the Butskellite concensus whose failure had darkened or illuminated the 1970s.
You can't do a volte face - it takes years to convince a sceptical electorate your Party has really changed. Labour's journey back to power started in the mid 80s but Kinnock couldn't complete the journey because of who he was and his political roots. Blair could for the same reasons. Cameron managed to persuade people his Conservative Party had shed its Thatcherite past and was once again a "One Nation" party but even with a global financial crash and 13 years of an exhausted Labour Government, he couldn't win a majority at one election and needed a second.
Take Brexit out of the equation and on issues such as housing and climate change there's probably more cross-party agreement than some might imagine but Brexit dominates to such an extent these important issues and many others have been relegated to the margins.
I sort of disagree with the first paragraph.
Of the 4.5 million voters who deserted the Conservatives between 1992-1997, most simply did not vote in the next election.
How many of those weren't in a position to vote in 1997?
Good to see the Guardian editor personally apologised to david Cameron for the appalling editorial the newspaper ran. I wonder if the Sun will extend the same courtesy to Ben Stokes for the utterly shameful story it has published today about his family.
Stokes has issued an absolutely blistering statement quite rightly about the invasion of his family's privacy. Sun being c*nts as ever.
Wouldn't mess with the Stokes family. They are capable of being tasty if needs be.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
No deal is a nonsense, as it self evidently hurts us more than EU27. They know this. They know we know this too. Hence it's not credible as a negotiating position.
It was the default if we hadn’t agreed a deal by March 29. Those who wish to undo the result were elected on a promise to implement it, then refused to back a deal and made the default illegal. They are just filibustering to bore us back into another referendum.
I see my earlier picked up a couple of comments. Blair's outstanding success was to convince millions of disillusioned Conservative voters the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Against a divided and exhausted Conservative Party, the miracle is the Tories got as many as 165 seats - it wouldn't have taken much to take them nearer 100.
It's not an easy act to pull - Wilson back in 1964 convinced the country his Labour Party was modern and technocratic and almost non-ideological while Thatcher in 1979 offered what looked a convincing alternative to the Butskellite concensus whose failure had darkened or illuminated the 1970s.
You can't do a volte face - it takes years to convince a sceptical electorate your Party has really changed. Labour's journey back to power started in the mid 80s but Kinnock couldn't complete the journey because of who he was and his political roots. Blair could for the same reasons. Cameron managed to persuade people his Conservative Party had shed its Thatcherite past and was once again a "One Nation" party but even with a global financial crash and 13 years of an exhausted Labour Government, he couldn't win a majority at one election and needed a second.
Take Brexit out of the equation and on issues such as housing and climate change there's probably more cross-party agreement than some might imagine but Brexit dominates to such an extent these important issues and many others have been relegated to the margins.
I sort of disagree with the first paragraph.
Of the 4.5 million voters who deserted the Conservatives between 1992-1997, most simply did not vote in the next election.
How many of those weren't in a position to vote in 1997?
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
Yes to the last part and yes the system worked against UKIP. As it worked against all minority parties. The country was asked if it wanted to change the system and it said no (and I would be interested to know the proportion of Kippers who voted for or against that change).
The country was not asked whether it wanted to change the system in general, it was asked whether it wanted AV. Almost nobody wants AV as their first choice (pun not intended).
In practice the AV referendum was a referendum on Clegg. It was his referendum. Everybody hated him. It had little to do with the merits of AV and absolutely nothing to do with the merits of PR.
In practice the EU referendum, for many Labour Leavers, was a referendum on Cameron and his toff friends. It was his referendum. It certainly wasn't Corbyn's. For many Labour Leavers it had little to do with the EU and much to do with Cameron and the London elite who needed a good kicking. I can't see Johnson and JRM winning them over.
Good to see the Guardian editor personally apologised to david Cameron for the appalling editorial the newspaper ran. I wonder if the Sun will extend the same courtesy to Ben Stokes for the utterly shameful story it has published today about his family.
Stokes has issued an absolutely blistering statement quite rightly about the invasion of his family's privacy. Sun being c*nts as ever.
It's totally despicable. I would not want to be the Sun's cricket correspondent right now. It won't just be Stokes refusing to go near him except to tell him to F Off.
How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
In your opinion. There are others.
Whose else’s opinion could it be?
Do you have any links to the “others”?
I believe Cyclefree provided at least one of them already.
David's opinion seems simply to be that the government's case "is compelling". Mine is simply that is isn't.
This is particular struck me as disingenuous on its face: ...it would be positively inconsistent with Parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers for the courts to devise further constraints on the sittings of Parliament...
Consistent, though, with my opinion (FWTW) that the English court approached the arguments arse about face. I was surprised by the Scottish court's decision, as I think in this particular case, the length of prorogation is just about arguable. On the principle itself, I think they were quite right.
Unlike David but methinks he is blinkered by his Tory/unionist leanings. Though I personally hope he is right as it will once again show that Scotland is treated like carp and an English court can just throw Scottish Law aside. More help for a future independent Scotland.
Scotland treat like carp? I think you need to mullet over. Or you'll flounder around.
All this is without today’s hyped ruling by the Supreme Court on the legality of the prorogation.
I doubt we’ll get the ruling today.....unless it’s a lot more clear cut than commentators believe....
"That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament." - Bill of Rights 1688
Sadly that does not quite address extra-Parliamentary, and arguably unlawful attempts to curtail proceedings in Parliament by the executive through a repurposed use of a prerogative power.
Pannick has just said Parliament "may want to keep a close eye on the negotiation, if any, with other member states".
But we negotiate with the Commission, not the MS, and those negotiations are also done on prerogative powers until they are put before Parliament as MV(insert number here).
After No Deal all member states get a veto on any trade agreement the UK makes with the EU. At that point, what Luxembourg and Malta think becomes as important as what the Commission says and does. In fact, in some countries, it moves to the regional level, doesn't it? We'll need to keep a close eye on places like Flanders, too.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
I think Leavers have two choices. If they want remainers to respect the result and for that result to not be challenged, they need to accommodate the views and opinions of them in implementing the result. Alternatively, if they don't want to and instead wish to pursue an extreme version of Brexit, they can't demand remainers go along with it. It seems what the likes of Brendan O'Neill and his cronies at Spiked wanted was remainers to essentially be a bunch of cucks, go along with an extreme version of Brexit, and should repent for forgiveness for ever having voted remain.
Remain voting MPs were elected on a promise to enact the referendum result, then voted against our PMs agreement with the EU. This is the biggest outrage of the whole shebang.
Can you show me where in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto there's "a promise to enact the referendum result"?
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
I think Leavers have two choices. If they want remainers to respect the result and for that result to not be challenged, they need to accommodate the views and opinions of them in implementing the result. Alternatively, if they don't want to and instead wish to pursue an extreme version of Brexit, they can't demand remainers go along with it. It seems what the likes of Brendan O'Neill and his cronies at Spiked wanted was remainers to essentially be a bunch of cucks, go along with an extreme version of Brexit, and should repent for forgiveness for ever having voted remain.
Remain voting MPs were elected on a promise to enact the referendum result, then voted against our PMs agreement with the EU. This is the biggest outrage of the whole shebang.
Can you show me where in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto there's "a promise to enact the referendum result"?
Why would I do that? I never said they did, although that’s the 2017 Lib Dem’s... a few of their new recruits explicitly did
Pannick has just said Parliament "may want to keep a close eye on the negotiation, if any, with other member states".
But we negotiate with the Commission, not the MS, and those negotiations are also done on prerogative powers until they are put before Parliament as MV(insert number here).
After No Deal all member states get a veto on any trade agreement the UK makes with the EU. At that point, what Luxembourg and Malta think becomes as important as what the Commission says and does. In fact, in some countries, it moves to the regional level, doesn't it? We'll need to keep a close eye on places like Flanders, too.
I see my earlier picked up a couple of comments. Blair's outstanding success was to convince millions of disillusioned Conservative voters the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Against a divided and exhausted Conservative Party, the miracle is the Tories got as many as 165 seats - it wouldn't have taken much to take them nearer 100.
It's not an easy act to pull - Wilson back in 1964 convinced the country his Labour Party was modern and technocratic and almost non-ideological while Thatcher in 1979 offered what looked a convincing alternative to the Butskellite concensus whose failure had darkened or illuminated the 1970s.
You can't do a volte face - it takes years to convince a sceptical electorate your Party has really changed. Labour's journey back to power started in the mid 80s but Kinnock couldn't complete the journey because of who he was and his political roots. Blair could for the same reasons. Cameron managed to persuade people his Conservative Party had shed its Thatcherite past and was once again a "One Nation" party but even with a global financial crash and 13 years of an exhausted Labour Government, he couldn't win a majority at one election and needed a second.
Take Brexit out of the equation and on issues such as housing and climate change there's probably more cross-party agreement than some might imagine but Brexit dominates to such an extent these important issues and many others have been relegated to the margins.
I sort of disagree with the first paragraph.
Of the 4.5 million voters who deserted the Conservatives between 1992-1997, most simply did not vote in the next election.
How many of those weren't in a position to vote in 1997?
They can't all have been in prison, surely?
I was thinking of natural population turnover. A population of 65 million and a lifespan of 75, is going to lose c500-800k people per year. In 5 years that's 2.5-4 million people, probably of whom at least half voted Tory.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The route to Brexit has been continually hindered by those thinking that the withdrawal negotiations is similar to maximising the Mbps from a commercial communications company.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
Yes to the last part and yes the system worked against UKIP. As it worked against all minority parties. The country was asked if it wanted to change the system and it said no (and I would be interested to know the proportion of Kippers who voted for or against that change).
The country was not asked whether it wanted to change the system in general, it was asked whether it wanted AV. Almost nobody wants AV as their first choice (pun not intended).
In practice the AV referendum was a referendum on Clegg. It was his referendum. Everybody hated him. It had little to do with the merits of AV and absolutely nothing to do with the merits of PR.
In practice the EU referendum, for many Labour Leavers, was a referendum on Cameron and his toff friends. It was his referendum. It certainly wasn't Corbyn's. For many Labour Leavers it had little to do with the EU and much to do with Cameron and the London elite who needed a good kicking. I can't see Johnson and JRM winning them over.
Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
I've more experiences with Brits (and others living in Thailand). Expats is OK..... perhaps mildly pejorative, but only very mildly. Farang, the Thai term for Caucasians can be a bit more doubtful. It's more expensive though; the 'farang price' is always at least double the Thai!
I don't particularly like the word "expat" but I don't take offence at people using it. As with most words, how insulting it is is determined by the other words around it.
My (slight) issue is that it sounds like an "expat" used to be patriotic but is no longer, but there is no reason to assume that patriotism decreases, just because someone moves overseas.
Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
No deal is a nonsense, as it self evidently hurts us more than EU27. They know this. They know we know this too. Hence it's not credible as a negotiating position.
To be fair, that depends how crazy they think Johnson and the others are.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
Yes to the last part and yes the system worked against UKIP. As it worked against all minority parties. The country was asked if it wanted to change the system and it said no (and I would be interested to know the proportion of Kippers who voted for or against that change).
The country was not asked whether it wanted to change the system in general, it was asked whether it wanted AV. Almost nobody wants AV as their first choice (pun not intended).
In practice the AV referendum was a referendum on Clegg. It was his referendum. Everybody hated him. It had little to do with the merits of AV and absolutely nothing to do with the merits of PR.
In practice the EU referendum, for many Labour Leavers, was a referendum on Cameron and his toff friends. It was his referendum. It certainly wasn't Corbyn's. For many Labour Leavers it had little to do with the EU and much to do with Cameron and the London elite who needed a good kicking. I can't see Johnson and JRM winning them over.
Correct.
Hmmmm we were told on here in the build up to the referendum not to make it a referendum on Dave cause he’s so popular and great
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
So May was being unreasonable when she came back with a deal that Labour and the Lib Dems voted against?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html is perfect. What a shambles the case is though , all the books are printed differently and so no-one knows what page they are on , what an absolute disaster. They could not run a bath.
Those who think Boris has some magical masterplan are very probably wrong. I doubt he knows if he really wants to circumvent the law, go for No Deal or go for a Deal, or resign.
He’s doing what he always does: winging it and making it up as he goes along. To the extent he may have a strategy, that will be devised by others (like Cummings) and the part he’ll play will be monarch of the glen.
Past form suggests that when the heat gets too much Boris takes the path of least resistance, so if he’s really stuck I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bail out.
Boris is fundamentally unsuited to being in government.
And May was fundamentally unsuited to being in politics.
Do you think there is something wrong with the Conservative party's members and/or procedures which allowed both to reach the top ?
Looking around all the parties I would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with politics and society rather than just the parties themselves.
You see the bigger picture so well, Richard!
Our Parliamentary democracy served us well through the 19th and most of the 20th Century, but it is struggling now. If I have a smidgeon of sympathy with Cummings and his wrecking ball strategy it is because I can understand the frustration of those trying to make an archaic system work for modern times.
I'm not sure we need a thoroughgoing revolution though. I'd settle for PR myself, at least to start with.
Part of it is the system; part of it is the individuals who are in the system.
As a general rule, those who get to the top (and not just in politics) exhibit a certain portfolio of personality characteristics that are not necessarily the best for the role. When you couple that with the personal scrutiny that accompanies politicians, you're excluding a huge number of capable individuals who are put off by the conditions they would have to operate in.
And in 70% of seats the MP is chosen by party members not the public.
I agree with you. This is why I said it was a problem of our political systems and of society.
Comments
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
People who are good at politics*, tend to get to the top. People who are privileged and have connections and money backing them, get to the top. Eton is not necessary, it's sufficient.
*-eg narcissism
I'm struggling to understand the high court judgment that as it was a 'political' decision it's not a matter for the courts. What if the government chose to suspend parliament indefinitely? At the same time I don't understand the court of session judgment either.
If anyone has broken the law it must surely be Her Majesty. It's her prerogative.
My coat you say?
We had some technical legal trolling afterwards (and a questionable evaluation imo). I do not see that that changes the political reality.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
The motives leading upto the order are the key not what may or may not have happened after that time in the Commons .
If we had a UK-wide decision that was illegal in England, it's illegal for the UK as a whole. If a UK-wide decision is illegal in Scotland, it's illegal in the UK.
I have fibre to the house as well.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
The country was vehemently assured by the Leave campaigns that a super duper new deal would be struck effortlessly. They claimed that to suggest otherwise was project fear.
It turns out that the Leave prospectus was fraudulent. So the decision needs to be reopened.
The EU situation is more akin to a marriage, not a transactional relationship. It's akin to a partner saying I'm divorcing you, and if you don't agree to the terms I'm going to sleep under the arches.
Sure, the other partner will worry about the parent of their children, and how they will cope without the maintenance income, but there are other options for them.
Is this better?
No consolation, but it’s streaming in Jakarta just fine....
I'm glad it annoys them.
The points Krugman makes about Republicans not believing in democracy are pretty powerful, and it's easy to draw parallels to Johnson on this side of the pond (although IMO Johnson hasn't gone as far... yet?)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/opinion/republicans-democracy.html
It's not an easy act to pull - Wilson back in 1964 convinced the country his Labour Party was modern and technocratic and almost non-ideological while Thatcher in 1979 offered what looked a convincing alternative to the Butskellite concensus whose failure had darkened or illuminated the 1970s.
You can't do a volte face - it takes years to convince a sceptical electorate your Party has really changed. Labour's journey back to power started in the mid 80s but Kinnock couldn't complete the journey because of who he was and his political roots. Blair could for the same reasons. Cameron managed to persuade people his Conservative Party had shed its Thatcherite past and was once again a "One Nation" party but even with a global financial crash and 13 years of an exhausted Labour Government, he couldn't win a majority at one election and needed a second.
Take Brexit out of the equation and on issues such as housing and climate change there's probably more cross-party agreement than some might imagine but Brexit dominates to such an extent these important issues and many others have been relegated to the margins.
Consequently the other axis, between liberal and authoritarian, inwards or outeards, however you want to name it, has come to the fore.
The Tories (and BXP) have panted their flag firmly on the internal/authoritarian ground
The Lib Dems have taken the opposite stance
Labour? They don't know - and are being forced to choose. Like the Liberals in the 1920s.
It seems what the likes of Brendan O'Neill and his cronies at Spiked wanted was remainers to essentially be a bunch of cucks, go along with an extreme version of Brexit, and should repent for forgiveness for ever having voted remain.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
But we negotiate with the Commission, not the MS, and those negotiations are also done on prerogative powers until they are put before Parliament as MV(insert number here).
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-says-eu-apple-13bn-tax-decision-is-confused-and-inconsistent-1.4020680?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-says-eu-apple-13bn-tax-decision-is-confused-and-inconsistent-1.4020680
Of the 4.5 million voters who deserted the Conservatives between 1992-1997, most simply did not vote in the next election.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
Disgracing ourselves
Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-s-apple-appeal-is-a-disastrous-miscalculation-1.4019875
Ah, my coat