I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.
It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.
Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.
The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.
As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).
Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
They form a minority government and attempt to govern.
My interpretation of no support means they would Vonc Cornyn. So bavk to anotjer GE whivh risks letting in Johnson and No Deal?
The LD position is now to allow Brexit to be settled by the election of a majority government
"The legal limits on the power of the executive are set by Parliament and not by the courts."
That seems a rather reckless argument, which could be defeated by a single example of the courts ruling against the executive without explicit statutory authority.
Wouldn't the Gina Miller judgment be such an example? If not, what was the statute that the court invoked?
That wasn't a rhetorical question.
If the government's argument now is that the courts can't limit the executive's power without explicit statutory authority, what was the statutory authority in the Gina Miller case?
Lord Keen is arguing before the same court that made the Gina Miller judgment.
The Justices split 4 (Majority)-2 (Dissent)-5 (Not present) from the Miller verdict.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.
The argument now seems to be that the court can't rule to limit the power of the executive without explicit statutory authority.
My question is what was the statutory authority in the Gina Miller case.
I take it you're not suggesting the court is going to say that the Gina Miller judgment was wrong.
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Not really, my Peugeot clocks 3,600 RPM at 70 MPH at the moment - 85 would probably red line it. It just has a loooooong 5th gear. Passing bikes at lower speeds is no issue.
I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.
It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.
Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.
The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.
As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).
Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
I have to admit that my first thought on Swinson's Article 50 revocation was that it was a smart move in a tactical political sense because it would capture a core of voters (15-20%?) that are hard-line Remainers. However, having spoken to a few of them, their view is the policy is a disaster. Not because they think it is undemocratic but because they see that it gives the Tories carte blanche to take us out of the EU (if we rejoin) without the need for a referendum the next time the Tories win an election.
Of course, that issue need not be a direct worry for the SNP, if they come to think they'll win indyref2 with a high degree of certainty - or just a parliamentary mandate. What happens south of Tweed and Solway in re Brexit2 is not going to be their problem, at least not immediately (obviously it would be a major foreign policy issue). Yet another reason for the bizarreness of the LD policy in a Scottish context.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit.
Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
My mad proposal of the day. Trackers in all cars a requirement. Develop technology to rate the driving population at the end of each month based primarily on safety, including but not only speed. Safest 10% get a months free insurance and road tax. Lowest 10% get a warning letter, lowest 1% and anyone in lowest 10% 3 months in a row get fined. Lowest 1% twice in a year get retested with a view to a ban.
My sensible proposal for the day. Include third party insurance on petrol and then make further car insurance optional.
What about cars that don't require petrol?
Diesel same process. If powered by green tech lets make it 3rd party insurance free to further encourage take up.
I find this idea very interesting, but this free third party for electric/hydrogen is problematic. Who's picking the insurer for us? The government? What possible incentive would an insurer have for treating its "customers" well?
I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out
Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).
Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
I think she has yet to learn how to appear good on TV and live at the same time. It's not an easy act to pull off.
Maybe. I wonder how much it can be learned and how much it's have it/don't have it...
I think it her case, she can improve.
Her problem (to me, anyhow) is that she appears over-expressive on the small screen. In the same way that a performance that appears natural onstage seems exaggerated if filmed. Learning to dial it down is a great deal easier than having to learn to express (or simulate) emotion.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!
Which is to miss the point in its entirety.
With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
Obviously, the idea of waving them through is so that the need for paperwork doesn't hold things up.
Obviously that will only work one way.
The Yellowhammer assessment was that the rate of flow of goods across the Channel could be more than halved.
Not according to the plans Eurotunnel have put into place with pre approved documentation, scanning of documents and triage system for paperwork. Done in conjunction with the French, it will be slower, true. Inspections of vehicles will be more than now, but no reason for all vehicles to be inspected.
The word 'could' has a definition.
Yes it will be more hassle, but it is not automatically a disaster.
As I said earlier in the thread, there is a need for expectations management by both sides. If the delays are annoying but relatively minor, Brexit will be painted as a success. Rejoin (as it would be at that stage) would have lost one of the weapons it will need.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
Because not everyone wants to drive around in a fucking Invacar.
What do our learned friends on PB make of Lord Keen's submission? Seems like he was going hard after the Scottish Inner House judgement.
I make no claim to be learned, but my feeling is that the Government are ahead on points. There seems to be no precedent for challenging prorogation and examples of politically motivated prorogations before. And no relevant statute law (crucial difference with Miller case for triggering Article 50 as the European Communities Act 1972 provisions were infringed) to rely on.
So the pro-Government argument seems to be easier to make, based on what I've heard from today's session.
They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!
Which is to miss the point in its entirety.
With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
One point is being overlooked. Currently, you do not need the "correct paperwork" to drive into France. After a No Deal Brexit you would need to show it. However, fast you are waived through, it would still be slower than now.
What makes you think anyone is going to be waved through when entering France?
Because there's always a risk that if you try to stop a vehicle, it'll be Dura_Ace going at 200mph. Once the inevitable happens and he turns his car into a very thin disc of melted steel, like some glittering bullseye on a wall, then the customs authorities can do their job safely.
They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!
Which is to miss the point in its entirety.
With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
One point is being overlooked. Currently, you do not need the "correct paperwork" to drive into France. After a No Deal Brexit you would need to show it. However, fast you are waived through, it would still be slower than now.
What makes you think anyone is going to be waved through when entering France?
Is the French customs at Eurotunnel still in Folkestone?
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
Cars are just so dangerous and the speed they can go unnecessary. I think they need reining in
I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.
It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.
Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.
The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.
As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).
Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
I have to admit that my first thought on Swinson's Article 50 revocation was that it was a smart move in a tactical political sense because it would capture a core of voters (15-20%?) that are hard-line Remainers. However, having spoken to a few of them, their view is the policy is a disaster. Not because they think it is undemocratic but because they see that it gives the Tories carte blanche to take us out of the EU (if we rejoin) without the need for a referendum the next time the Tories win an election.
Interesting thing is that this only comes up because we had the referendum - if the Tories had leaving EU (without referendum) in manifesto in 2015 and then won a majority then I don't think anyone could have complained about the implementation of it - campaigned against it, sure, but obviously democratic under our rules. I would not have seen it as undemocratic, despite opposing it.
So, to an extent we'd just be back to the pre-referendum position, albeit with a far nuttier Conservative party (and Labour party too, to be fair).
This "lorries won't have the right paperwork" thing seems extremely unlikely. My company like many others had a whole department preparing for Brexit on March 31st, and they reckon they were 90% ready. Now they are probably 99% ready (never going to be 100%, sure)
Business mainly cares about business, not politics, so will be as ready as possible. Bosses might hate Brexit, but they aren't going to let it cause them problems just to help the Lib Dems' optics...
Will it all be smooth? Surely not, it's a ballache we could do without, but it absolutely won't be the hoped-for disaster of the hardcore Remainers.
Where Brexit will impact - and I see this in my line of work - is the decision making in the medium to long term. The jobs that get sited in the EU27 because that's where they need to be.
Fair comment. But that will depend what we do after Brexit. It's not impossible we could be better off eventually, although with our current set of leaders and potential leaders in other parties, i am not hopeful.
They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!
Which is to miss the point in its entirety.
With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
Obviously, the idea of waving them through is so that the need for paperwork doesn't hold things up.
Obviously that will only work one way.
The Yellowhammer assessment was that the rate of flow of goods across the Channel could be more than halved.
Not according to the plans Eurotunnel have put into place with pre approved documentation, scanning of documents and triage system for paperwork. Done in conjunction with the French, it will be slower, true. Inspections of vehicles will be more than now, but no reason for all vehicles to be inspected.
The word 'could' has a definition.
Yes it will be more hassle, but it is not automatically a disaster.
As I said earlier in the thread, there is a need for expectations management by both sides. If the delays are annoying but relatively minor, Brexit will be painted as a success. Rejoin (as it would be at that stage) would have lost one of the weapons it will need.
So when you said above that I was entirely missing the point, you weren't actually agreeing with the comment I was criticising, which said "trucks with the right paperwork will be able to pass through just as they do today - without delays"
What you meant (but didn't say) is that there would be delays, but not disastrous delays.
This is a good example of why I find it such a waste of time commenting here.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
Cars are just so dangerous and the speed they can go unnecessary. I think they need reining in
Drivers are dangerous, cars less so. Rein in the drivers.
"The legal limits on the power of the executive are set by Parliament and not by the courts."
That seems a rather reckless argument, which could be defeated by a single example of the courts ruling against the executive without explicit statutory authority.
Wouldn't the Gina Miller judgment be such an example? If not, what was the statute that the court invoked?
That wasn't a rhetorical question.
If the government's argument now is that the courts can't limit the executive's power without explicit statutory authority, what was the statutory authority in the Gina Miller case?
Lord Keen is arguing before the same court that made the Gina Miller judgment.
The Justices split 4 (Majority)-2 (Dissent)-5 (Not present) from the Miller verdict.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.
The argument now seems to be that the court can't rule to limit the power of the executive without explicit statutory authority.
My question is what was the statutory authority in the Gina Miller case.
I take it you're not suggesting the court is going to say that the Gina Miller judgment was wrong.
You do not need statute to make law - there is lots and lots of judge made law- and always has been.
Here the court is being asked to find a line between politics and the judicial. Usually courts want to stay well away and led by Sumption in recent years there was a drift away from judicial review which was a remedy to poor decision making that grew through the 20th century. All to play for here though and foolhardy to try and read the judges from the comments and questions they raise.
Equally foolish to suggest any bias is relevant- they are lawyers and well used to arguing cases they do not agree with.
They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!
Which is to miss the point in its entirety.
With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
Obviously, the idea of waving them through is so that the need for paperwork doesn't hold things up.
Obviously that will only work one way.
The Yellowhammer assessment was that the rate of flow of goods across the Channel could be more than halved.
Not according to the plans Eurotunnel have put into place with pre approved documentation, scanning of documents and triage system for paperwork. Done in conjunction with the French, it will be slower, true. Inspections of vehicles will be more than now, but no reason for all vehicles to be inspected.
The word 'could' has a definition.
Yes it will be more hassle, but it is not automatically a disaster.
As I said earlier in the thread, there is a need for expectations management by both sides. If the delays are annoying but relatively minor, Brexit will be painted as a success. Rejoin (as it would be at that stage) would have lost one of the weapons it will need.
So when you said above that I was entirely missing the point, you weren't actually agreeing with the comment I was criticising, which said "trucks with the right paperwork will be able to pass through just as they do today - without delays"
What you meant (but didn't say) is that there would be delays, but not disastrous delays.
This is a good example of why I find it such a waste of time commenting here.
No I was commenting on the fact that there is no reason for the process to be different coming or going.
Why are you upset if you have got me to change my opinion to one where there will be some delays? I thought changing opinion was the reason for debate.
I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out
Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).
Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
I think she has yet to learn how to appear good on TV and live at the same time. It's not an easy act to pull off.
Maybe. I wonder how much it can be learned and how much it's have it/don't have it.
Different thing, but Lineker was awful when he started fronting MoTD, but grew into it. With politicians - May never had it, Cameron did, Kennedy did, Blair did, Johnson probably does (in a conference setting). I'm not old enough to remember early Thatcher - did she improve over time?
Only political obsessives like us listen to conference speeches anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. Performing in a debate is more important now.
Thatcher improved her performances, peaked and then declined a good while prior to her resignation.
Thatcher famously took voice training in her early years as PM.
One other legacy of Mrs Thatcher being fairly awful when she took over is the orchestrated cheering and barracking at PMQs in particular, which started as a Conservative tactic to support Mrs Thatcher and now makes it almost impossible to be heard unaided in the House.
If France would just give us our Calais back the queues could all be over there
Ireland looking from Northern Ireland to you and back again, eyebrows raised
Oh I'd happily swap the Irish for Calais back
We could reintroduce Danelaw then a lot of us won't have to deal with Lincolnshire any more.
I've long been in favour of restoring the Kingdom of East Anglia, then Calais wouldn't matter and Lincolnshire would be a food producing colony and buffer for the wuffingas and everyone else could bugger off.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
Cars are just so dangerous and the speed they can go unnecessary. I think they need reining in
People drive a lot slower than they used to twenty years ago, and the cars are much better. I think tailgating and lane discipline are far bigger issues.
They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!
TBH, if the threat was real, it would be tempting to play things the other way around. In a spirit of generous reciprocity, ensure that checks on imports to the UK are no less severe than those that our continental friends are so keen to impose. Then ensure that vehicles loaded with goods get priority over empty ones returning from where they came. Maybe additional tariffs on empty HGVs to influence market behaviour, both entering and leaving the UK.
With far more coming into the country than goes the other way, a lot of the HGVs leaving our shores for the EU are already empty, which is not the case of the flow in reverse. If capacity really is so strained as some would like us to believe, UK exports of goods would still be unaffected, but some of the EU's exporters to us would be inconvenienced and face higher costs for the return journey.
What do our learned friends on PB make of Lord Keen's submission? Seems like he was going hard after the Scottish Inner House judgement.
I make no claim to be learned, but my feeling is that the Government are ahead on points. There seems to be no precedent for challenging prorogation and examples of politically motivated prorogations before. And no relevant statute law (crucial difference with Miller case for triggering Article 50 as the European Communities Act 1972 provisions were infringed) to rely on.
But the argument now seems to be that the courts can intervene only if the Executive's power has been explicitly limited by statute.
Not on the basis that the Executive's action may infringe rights that have been conferred by statute.
I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.
It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.
Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.
The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.
As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).
Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
They form a minority government and attempt to govern.
My interpretation of no support means they would Vonc Cornyn. So bavk to anotjer GE whivh risks letting in Johnson and No Deal?
Support just means formal coalition.
Another poster has said vote on a case by case basis. Which means a veto on his socialist nonsense. Sounds good to me.
So if the leader of the opposition called a Vonc, what would they do? Support Corbyn? Abstain on whether a man she says is not fit to be PM, who she says she will not prop up, should continue to be PM? She needs to choose.
This "lorries won't have the right paperwork" thing seems extremely unlikely. My company like many others had a whole department preparing for Brexit on March 31st, and they reckon they were 90% ready. Now they are probably 99% ready (never going to be 100%, sure)
Business mainly cares about business, not politics, so will be as ready as possible. Bosses might hate Brexit, but they aren't going to let it cause them problems just to help the Lib Dems' optics...
Will it all be smooth? Surely not, it's a ballache we could do without, but it absolutely won't be the hoped-for disaster of the hardcore Remainers.
Where Brexit will impact - and I see this in my line of work - is the decision making in the medium to long term. The jobs that get sited in the EU27 because that's where they need to be.
Fair comment. But that will depend what we do after Brexit. It's not impossible we could be better off eventually, although with our current set of leaders and potential leaders in other parties, i am not hopeful.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
No it wouldn't, it would be as powerful a car as you want it to be with an electronic management system. If you know so little about cars you don't understand even that, probably best to assume the people who set speed limits know more than you do.
They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!
Which is to miss the point in its entirety.
With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
Obviously, the idea of waving them through is so that the need for paperwork doesn't hold things up.
Obviously that will only work one way.
The Yellowhammer assessment was that the rate of flow of goods across the Channel could be more than halved.
Not according to the plans Eurotunnel have put into place with pre approved documentation, scanning of documents and triage system for paperwork. Done in conjunction with the French, it will be slower, true. Inspections of vehicles will be more than now, but no reason for all vehicles to be inspected.
The word 'could' has a definition.
Yes it will be more hassle, but it is not automatically a disaster.
As I said earlier in the thread, there is a need for expectations management by both sides. If the delays are annoying but relatively minor, Brexit will be painted as a success. Rejoin (as it would be at that stage) would have lost one of the weapons it will need.
So when you said above that I was entirely missing the point, you weren't actually agreeing with the comment I was criticising, which said "trucks with the right paperwork will be able to pass through just as they do today - without delays"
What you meant (but didn't say) is that there would be delays, but not disastrous delays.
This is a good example of why I find it such a waste of time commenting here.
No I was commenting on the fact that there is no reason for the process to be different coming or going.
Why are you upset if you have got me to change my opinion to one where there will be some delays? I thought changing opinion was the reason for debate.
You appeared to be disagreeing with me when I suggested that there would be delays, rather than everything continuing as it is now.
Frankly, that's just as irritating even if you thought at the time that there would be no delays, and have since changed your mind.
I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.
It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.
Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.
The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.
As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).
Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
They form a minority government and attempt to govern.
My interpretation of no support means they would Vonc Cornyn. So bavk to anotjer GE whivh risks letting in Johnson and No Deal?
Support just means formal coalition.
Another poster has said vote on a case by case basis. Which means a veto on his socialist nonsense. Sounds good to me.
So if the leader of the opposition called a Vonc, what would they do? Support Corbyn? Abstain on whether a man she says is not fit to be PM, who she says she will not prop up, should continue to be PM? She needs to choose.
They will decide on a case by case basis! They cannot say which way the vote would go now as they do not know what cases the Corbyn govt brings forward. If its compulsory state purchase of Tescos and the abolition of the army then he would get no confidenced. If its a 2nd ref and a bit more public spending he wont be.
Unfortunately for Swinson, being more well-known hasn’t translated to becoming more well-liked in net terms. Currently 26% of Britons have a favourable view of the Lib Dem leader, but 38% have an unfavourable view, giving a net score of -12, a score broadly similar to the -15 she started out on.
She is, however, substantially more popular among Remain voters than Jeremy Corbyn. While the Labour leader holds a net favourability score of just -24 among this group, Swinson stands at +29, and that is still with 31% of Remain voters not knowing who she is. Whether that popularity can be redeemed for Lib Dem votes at the forthcoming general election is another matter.
I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out
Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).
Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
I think she has yet to learn how to appear good on TV and live at the same time. It's not an easy act to pull off.
Maybe. I wonder how much it can be learned and how much it's have it/don't have it.
Different thing, but Lineker was awful when he started fronting MoTD, but grew into it. With politicians - May never had it, Cameron did, Kennedy did, Blair did, Johnson probably does (in a conference setting). I'm not old enough to remember early Thatcher - did she improve over time?
Only political obsessives like us listen to conference speeches anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. Performing in a debate is more important now.
Even today , Lineker is only adequate - and far from being a good broadcaster.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
Cars are just so dangerous and the speed they can go unnecessary. I think they need reining in
People drive a lot slower than they used to twenty years ago, and the cars are much better. I think tailgating and lane discipline are far bigger issues.
Tailgating is far worse than 20 yers ago - but this is because the traffic density is so much higher.
I drove 500 miles one day last week. The vast majority of it was in excess of the speed limit. But I was just "going with the flow" on A roads and motorways. The ability to overtake is more limited than it was 20 years ago. People bunch up more. But we generally seem to have learnt to drive at 85 mph almost bumper to bumper.
I saw no traffic cameras, no police patrol cars in those 500 miles.
So if the leader of the opposition called a Vonc, what would they do? Support Corbyn? Abstain on whether a man she says is not fit to be PM, who she says she will not prop up, should continue to be PM? She needs to choose.
They will decide on a case by case basis! They cannot say which way the vote would go now as they do not know what cases the Corbyn govt brings forward. If its compulsory state purchase of Tescos and the abolition of the army then he would get no confidenced. If its a 2nd ref and a bit more public spending he wont be.
Your interpretation might be correct, I hope it is. But it's very different to what Swinson is saying publicly now.
Unfortunately for Swinson, being more well-known hasn’t translated to becoming more well-liked in net terms. Currently 26% of Britons have a favourable view of the Lib Dem leader, but 38% have an unfavourable view, giving a net score of -12, a score broadly similar to the -15 she started out on.
She is, however, substantially more popular among Remain voters than Jeremy Corbyn. While the Labour leader holds a net favourability score of just -24 among this group, Swinson stands at +29, and that is still with 31% of Remain voters not knowing who she is. Whether that popularity can be redeemed for Lib Dem votes at the forthcoming general election is another matter.
At least we now know YouGov’s grading system. +5 is growth in popularity while +3 is broadly similar.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
Cars are just so dangerous and the speed they can go unnecessary. I think they need reining in
People drive a lot slower than they used to twenty years ago, and the cars are much better. I think tailgating and lane discipline are far bigger issues.
Tailgating is far worse than 20 yers ago - but this is because the traffic density is so much higher.
I drove 500 miles one day last week. The vast majority of it was in excess of the speed limit. But I was just "going with the flow" on A roads and motorways. The ability to overtake is more limited than it was 20 years ago. People bunch up more. But we generally seem to have learnt to drive at 85 mph almost bumper to bumper.
I saw no traffic cameras, no police patrol cars in those 500 miles.
In the days before the medical experts had my driving license off me I used to often drive up to Fort William from Norwich. Absolute shit load of cameras on the A17 then pretty much nothing till you get up there! Lot of tailgating though
Unfortunately for Swinson, being more well-known hasn’t translated to becoming more well-liked in net terms. Currently 26% of Britons have a favourable view of the Lib Dem leader, but 38% have an unfavourable view, giving a net score of -12, a score broadly similar to the -15 she started out on.
She is, however, substantially more popular among Remain voters than Jeremy Corbyn. While the Labour leader holds a net favourability score of just -24 among this group, Swinson stands at +29, and that is still with 31% of Remain voters not knowing who she is. Whether that popularity can be redeemed for Lib Dem votes at the forthcoming general election is another matter.
-16 isn't great for an incoming PM. wasn't Theresa May +10 or thereabouts? Odd to think Corbyn peaked at 0. Those were the days!
What do our learned friends on PB make of Lord Keen's submission? Seems like he was going hard after the Scottish Inner House judgement.
I make no claim to be learned, but my feeling is that the Government are ahead on points. There seems to be no precedent for challenging prorogation and examples of politically motivated prorogations before. And no relevant statute law (crucial difference with Miller case for triggering Article 50 as the European Communities Act 1972 provisions were infringed) to rely on.
So the pro-Government argument seems to be easier to make, based on what I've heard from today's session.
On Lord Keen: The suggestion that parliament has its own remedies by legislation, so don't need the courts to bail them out, has merit, as does the precedent of the highly political use of prorogation in 1948.
I would want the SC to keep in reserve the courts power over prorogation in extreme cases - eg lengthy prorogation without giving parliament time to legislate against it in support of tyranny and arbitrary power.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
Cars are just so dangerous and the speed they can go unnecessary. I think they need reining in
People drive a lot slower than they used to twenty years ago, and the cars are much better. I think tailgating and lane discipline are far bigger issues.
Tailgating is far worse than 20 yers ago - but this is because the traffic density is so much higher.
I drove 500 miles one day last week. The vast majority of it was in excess of the speed limit. But I was just "going with the flow" on A roads and motorways. The ability to overtake is more limited than it was 20 years ago. People bunch up more. But we generally seem to have learnt to drive at 85 mph almost bumper to bumper.
I saw no traffic cameras, no police patrol cars in those 500 miles.
Around London very few drive at 85mph. Most drivers are petrified by speed cameras and do not realise that what shows as 70mph on their speedometer is probably 60-65mph. Most of the motorway traffic travels at 65-70mph with zero lane discipline resulting in idiots tailgating the slow outside lane hoggers making it just as dangerous for everyone as it would be if the speed cameras werent there in the first place.
Unfortunately for Swinson, being more well-known hasn’t translated to becoming more well-liked in net terms. Currently 26% of Britons have a favourable view of the Lib Dem leader, but 38% have an unfavourable view, giving a net score of -12, a score broadly similar to the -15 she started out on.
She is, however, substantially more popular among Remain voters than Jeremy Corbyn. While the Labour leader holds a net favourability score of just -24 among this group, Swinson stands at +29, and that is still with 31% of Remain voters not knowing who she is. Whether that popularity can be redeemed for Lib Dem votes at the forthcoming general election is another matter.
Overall Swinson has seen a net rise of six points in her favourability. Given that she is only fishing in the Remainer pond that does not look too bad.
So if the leader of the opposition called a Vonc, what would they do? Support Corbyn? Abstain on whether a man she says is not fit to be PM, who she says she will not prop up, should continue to be PM? She needs to choose.
They will decide on a case by case basis! They cannot say which way the vote would go now as they do not know what cases the Corbyn govt brings forward. If its compulsory state purchase of Tescos and the abolition of the army then he would get no confidenced. If its a 2nd ref and a bit more public spending he wont be.
Your interpretation might be correct, I hope it is. But it's very different to what Swinson is saying publicly now.
I agree she is close to misleading in her choice of words, but when the interviewers drill down, that is the position. There will be no coalition, no supply and confidence, simply a minority govt that they will choose to sometimes vote with and sometimes against.
I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
Driving on public roads at that sort of speed is stupid. If you want to endanger yourself, fair enough: it's the fact you've got f'all consideration for other road users that makes you an utter twit. And the fact you boast about it - and don't feel in the least ashamed - makes you an (expletive deleted).
However, given your old job, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just got confused and thought you were actually flying a jet at really low level.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Agreed . I think limits have to be placed . I think tomorrow may be a bit more interesting than today as motive will play a bigger role as it’s the appeal from the government over the Scottish decision .
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Finally we agree.
The Attlee example seems a perfectly legitimate example of gaming the system in pursuit of a policy that was facing a procedural obstacle. The Major example (assuming the facts as widely assumed) was poor, but not serious enough to justify intervention. The current example is in an entirely different category of seriousness and of seeking to limit democratic discussion. Whether it should be set aside seems right on the margin to me.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Wasn't the Attlee prorogation a question of more often than usual, rather than longer?
It would be more interesting to see the percentage of the population who thought it would be legitimate for a govt elected by 35% of the electorate with a manifesto pledge to either do no deal or revoke without a further referendum.
Then they would be responding based on the perceived legitimacy rather than some/most answering with their preference/dislike of revoke.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
Around London very few drive at 85mph. Most drivers are petrified by speed cameras and do not realise that what shows as 70mph on their speedometer is probably 60-65mph. Most of the motorway traffic travels at 65-70mph with zero lane discipline resulting in idiots tailgating the slow outside lane hoggers making it just as dangerous for everyone as it would be if the speed cameras werent there in the first place.
Much as I hate them the average speed cameras do seem to work in keeping people within the limits.
What I do disagree with is the new Scottish police suggestion that they will prosecute for 1 mile over the limit. In effect to stop yourself drifting over 70 you have to hold your speed at 65.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Parliament could have decided this at any time - it didn’t .
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Wasn't the Attlee prorogation a question of more often than usual, rather than longer?
As I understand it he did it for political ends to prevent opposition to a bill. That seems to me to be completely unacceptable.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Wasn't the Attlee prorogation a question of more often than usual, rather than longer?
As I understand it he did it for political ends to prevent opposition to a bill. That seems to me to be completely unacceptable.
I meant that putting a time limit on prorogation wouldn't have prevented that.
Notice the 15% of remainers who think it's illegitimate. Perhaps Labour and the Greens scrapping over 15% of 48% isn't good for them, if the Lib Dems are being given a free run at 70% of 48%?
I can't see either of them changing stance, too. It's been a painful journey for Labour even to get to where they are. Meanwhile the Greens' only MP has been making a big fuss of trying to reach out to Leavers with the "right sentiment but wrong target" message.
I'm starting to think the Lib Dems have delivered the Greens a coup de grace and nobody's even noticed.
Notice the 15% of remainers who think it's illegitimate. Perhaps Labour and the Greens scrapping over 15% of 48% isn't good for them, if the Lib Dems are being given a free run at 70% of 48%?
I can't see either of them changing stance, too. It's been a painful journey for Labour even to get to where they are. Meanwhile the Greens' only MP has been making a big fuss of trying to reach out to Leavers with the "right sentiment but wrong target" message.
I'm starting to think the Lib Dems have delivered the Greens a coup de grace and nobody's even noticed.
Surely the Greens would be delivered a coup de grass?
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Wasn't the Attlee prorogation a question of more often than usual, rather than longer?
As I understand it he did it for political ends to prevent opposition to a bill. That seems to me to be completely unacceptable.
I meant that putting a time limit on prorogation wouldn't have prevented that.
Hence my additional point thst there should be controls on the reasons as well.
Notice the 15% of remainers who think it's illegitimate. Perhaps Labour and the Greens scrapping over 15% of 48% isn't good for them, if the Lib Dems are being given a free run at 70% of 48%?
I can't see either of them changing stance, too. It's been a painful journey for Labour even to get to where they are. Meanwhile the Greens' only MP has been making a big fuss of trying to reach out to Leavers with the "right sentiment but wrong target" message.
I'm starting to think the Lib Dems have delivered the Greens a coup de grace and nobody's even noticed.
Surely the Greens would be delivered a coup de grass?
Who knew being rude and petty would harm diplomacy?!
Boris should not have ran away then he would not have been rude and petty
Not one we agree on this Malc, the host should provide a suitable setting for a press conference, not expose his guest to protests, that's what he gets (and rightly) at home.
Since the current Prime Minister hasn’t deigned to explain his actions to the court, it’s most unlikely previous Prime Ministers will need to do so.
The argument of the government is the information on reasons is all there in the documents provided and there is no need therefore for an affidavit. The SC will determine the rightness of that
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
So to summarise: Is the secret plan kept secret from the UK negotiators? No. Is the secret plan kept secret from the EU negotiators? No. Is the secret plan kept secret from the British public? Yes.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
An elected head of state would justify the executive having an equal status with the legislature and act as a brake on a rogue parliament, get rid of this parliament is sovereign business
Comments
The argument now seems to be that the court can't rule to limit the power of the executive without explicit statutory authority.
My question is what was the statutory authority in the Gina Miller case.
I take it you're not suggesting the court is going to say that the Gina Miller judgment was wrong.
Her problem (to me, anyhow) is that she appears over-expressive on the small screen. In the same way that a performance that appears natural onstage seems exaggerated if filmed.
Learning to dial it down is a great deal easier than having to learn to express (or simulate) emotion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_speed_adaptation
The word 'could' has a definition.
Yes it will be more hassle, but it is not automatically a disaster.
As I said earlier in the thread, there is a need for expectations management by both sides. If the delays are annoying but relatively minor, Brexit will be painted as a success. Rejoin (as it would be at that stage) would have lost one of the weapons it will need.
So the pro-Government argument seems to be easier to make, based on what I've heard from today's session.
That could answer your question.
So, to an extent we'd just be back to the pre-referendum position, albeit with a far nuttier Conservative party (and Labour party too, to be fair).
What you meant (but didn't say) is that there would be delays, but not disastrous delays.
This is a good example of why I find it such a waste of time commenting here.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1173939100413497344?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1173939016108052480?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1173939156277485570?s=20
Here the court is being asked to find a line between politics and the judicial. Usually courts want to stay well away and led by Sumption in recent years there was a drift away from judicial review which was a remedy to poor decision making that grew through the 20th century. All to play for here though and foolhardy to try and read the judges from the comments and questions they raise.
Equally foolish to suggest any bias is relevant- they are lawyers and well used to arguing cases they do not agree with.
Why are you upset if you have got me to change my opinion to one where there will be some delays? I thought changing opinion was the reason for debate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0005br9/thatcher-a-very-british-revolution-series-1-1-making-margaret
One other legacy of Mrs Thatcher being fairly awful when she took over is the orchestrated cheering and barracking at PMQs in particular, which started as a Conservative tactic to support Mrs Thatcher and now makes it almost impossible to be heard unaided in the House.
With far more coming into the country than goes the other way, a lot of the HGVs leaving our shores for the EU are already empty, which is not the case of the flow in reverse. If capacity really is so strained as some would like us to believe, UK exports of goods would still be unaffected, but some of the EU's exporters to us would be inconvenienced and face higher costs for the return journey.
Not on the basis that the Executive's action may infringe rights that have been conferred by statute.
I think that's quite different.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-49717388
Frankly, that's just as irritating even if you thought at the time that there would be no delays, and have since changed your mind.
She is, however, substantially more popular among Remain voters than Jeremy Corbyn. While the Labour leader holds a net favourability score of just -24 among this group, Swinson stands at +29, and that is still with 31% of Remain voters not knowing who she is. Whether that popularity can be redeemed for Lib Dem votes at the forthcoming general election is another matter.
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1173926568449781760?s=20
I drove 500 miles one day last week. The vast majority of it was in excess of the speed limit. But I was just "going with the flow" on A roads and motorways. The ability to overtake is more limited than it was 20 years ago. People bunch up more. But we generally seem to have learnt to drive at 85 mph almost bumper to bumper.
I saw no traffic cameras, no police patrol cars in those 500 miles.
But it's very different to what Swinson is saying publicly now.
I've looked at the IG Index website and can't find anything.
California:
Warren
33%
Biden
18%
Coveney gets to squeaky bum time.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-in-informal-talks-over-alternatives-to-brexit-backstop-1.4021264?pw-origin=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-in-informal-talks-over-alternatives-to-backstop-1.4021264&auth-failed=1&mode=sample
I would want the SC to keep in reserve the courts power over prorogation in extreme cases - eg lengthy prorogation without giving parliament time to legislate against it in support of tyranny and arbitrary power.
I can see this deal being agreed with an extension for necessary parliamentary approval.
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
No irony?
Anyway Twitter is full of frothing EDL Brexit types.
or
Tracey Crouch as next Tory leader.
Quite right too if so.
https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1173992928483696641?s=21
However, given your old job, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just got confused and thought you were actually flying a jet at really low level.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
It's the Michael Foot precedent, no one would have objected in 1983 if he had won the election.
The correct policy for the Lib Dems is to Revoke, Review (cross-party) and the Revote in a few years.
Brexit shoulda been a process, as some folks on here said way back in 2016.
Then they would be responding based on the perceived legitimacy rather than some/most answering with their preference/dislike of revoke.
What I do disagree with is the new Scottish police suggestion that they will prosecute for 1 mile over the limit. In effect to stop yourself drifting over 70 you have to hold your speed at 65.
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1173997956011364353?s=21
Selective briefing seems to be happening.
Perhaps Labour and the Greens scrapping over 15% of 48% isn't good for them, if the Lib Dems are being given a free run at 70% of 48%?
I can't see either of them changing stance, too. It's been a painful journey for Labour even to get to where they are. Meanwhile the Greens' only MP has been making a big fuss of trying to reach out to Leavers with the "right sentiment but wrong target" message.
I'm starting to think the Lib Dems have delivered the Greens a coup de grace and nobody's even noticed.
Chapeau, sir. Masterful.
The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Is the secret plan kept secret from the UK negotiators? No.
Is the secret plan kept secret from the EU negotiators? No.
Is the secret plan kept secret from the British public? Yes.
Damn, that stinks...