(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
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.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
The referendum was not fought on party political lines. We were told the decision was ours, not politicians.
Given that, for politicians to then refuse to vote through a deal agreed by a Remainer PM and the EU is outrageous. I know PB is full of fans of lawyers using trickery to come to conclusions that baffle laymen, but this really wasn’t the time for that nonsense
Politicians saying things dont make it true, that's not legal trickery.
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.
Damn, that stinks...
Stops interference from opposition politicians whilst negotiation underway. Parliaments job is to scrutinize the deal when presented not try and influence or undermine it in advance.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
I would have thought it is still - as expressed by Peston - unacceptable to Ireland as it allows NI to No Deal unilaterally.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
As others have pointed out they are happy to be different when it comes to matters such as gay marriage.
41% support the legitimacy of the policy, not the policy itself.
And the question appears not to spell out that it would be done without a referendum - if that was added, I suspect the "illegitimate" proportion would rise. But of course the LibDems will be perfectly happy if they get say 25% of the vote, so in terms of party advantage it may be simultaneously unpopular and a relative vote-winner.
Maybe Cummings plan is to goad the opposition into voting for an election, by making them think Boris is holed beneath the waterline and polls are moving their way, whilst secretly he’s looking at very different numbers to everyone else?
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.
Damn, that stinks...
More likely it is being kept from a Parliament intent on stopping any possible deal.
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.
morons sitting on outside lanes at 40 and 50 are biggest issue, get their arses back in slow lane and let real drivers past
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.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
But I suppose that the DUP is no longer indispensable per se - what with the government having lost its majority and an election being likely - so the question is to what extent the ERG would be influenced by the DUP's attitude? Or whether the opposition could be faced with a choice of Deal or No Deal?
Maybe Cummings plan is to goad the opposition into voting for an election, by making them think Boris is holed beneath the waterline and polls are moving their way, whilst secretly he’s looking at very different numbers to everyone else?
It is certainly possible. We know that Lynton Crosby's firm has previously run massive private polls for CCHQ. I've given up trying to guess what the plan is, and am not even sure Boris, Cummings and Crosby are all on the same page.
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
Theres something to that, he will have to show a different side at home and take it on head first
I presume the EU would also want to agree if NI (and Stormont) wanted to diverge as that would create a delta over the border on the island of Ireland.
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
The Scottish Court said an affidavit wasn’t essential but they mentioned avernments .
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
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.
I'm not old enough to remember early Thatcher - did she improve over time?.
In terms of presentation she improved enormously between the early Education Secretary fussy busybody years and the mid '80s full-on Elizabeth 1st years. Before her, attempts at presentation management were ad-hoc and sotto voce - Wilson posed as a pipesmoker in public but smoked cigars in private, and had his teeth done - and after her they were overt and obvious: Kinnock was rebranded, and Blair turned a craft into an art. Boris is naturally gifted but (unlike Thatcher) does not apply himself.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
It’s a form of can kick.
Which should tickle the EU’s tummies at some 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.
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.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
Yeah, I'm certainly not advocating for the former. The latter is exactly what's needed. Odd that you think the role ought to bring with it international fame. An unobtrusive arbiter is what's needed. The way the queen currently plays it is good, we just need to be able to remove the head of state periodically to make sure we don't land up with some idiot who meddles and can't be removed. Because we are going to get that sooner rather than later.
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.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
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
The Scottish Court said an affidavit wasn’t essential but they mentioned avernments .
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
Well the 5 weeks was given a detailed run down this afternoon, the position seemingly being the Scottish court misunderstood the workings of parliament and that its 7 days not 5 weeks due to parliament not being able to be recalled during conference season to do the prorogation......
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.
morons sitting on outside lanes at 40 and 50 are biggest issue, get their arses back in slow lane and let real drivers past
Point of order: there is no "slow lane". The official titles are, from left to right, - driving lane - overtaking lane - idiot lane
Is this for real . That’s asking for trouble . To use the term political advantage when the judges were questioning at what point does advantage transgress the law.
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.
morons sitting on outside lanes at 40 and 50 are biggest issue, get their arses back in slow lane and let real drivers past
They are an equal problem with the tailgaters. When driving "Clowns to the left of me - Jokers to the right" seems apt, in politics I think its more the jokers are to the left and the clowns to the right but almost works there too.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
I genuinely don't know what will happen here. I hate uncertainty...
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 .
Maybe Cummings plan is to goad the opposition into voting for an election, by making them think Boris is holed beneath the waterline and polls are moving their way, whilst secretly he’s looking at very different numbers to everyone else?
Then again maybe not and he is just another donkey worshipped on pb
Maybe Cummings plan is to goad the opposition into voting for an election, by making them think Boris is holed beneath the waterline and polls are moving their way, whilst secretly he’s looking at very different numbers to everyone else?
It is certainly possible. We know that Lynton Crosby's firm has previously run massive private polls for CCHQ. I've given up trying to guess what the plan is, and am not even sure Boris, Cummings and Crosby are all on the same page.
I think Cummings’ strategy is broadly clear.
It’s not to give a flying shit what Parliament or anyone else in the “Establishment” do to delay or frustrate Brexit, because it all plays into his meme that it’s the people v. vested interests. If Boris gets a Deal and it’s more narrowly voted down than May’s, that helps him too.
It’s high risk though, because he can’t cash in without an election and Parliament are perfectly able to block one and, in extremis, there’s enough Tory MPs to VoNC Boris as Tory party leader too.
If he’s really playing 4D chess maybe he secretly *wants* a re-run of the referendum too so he can forcibly recode Parliament to get on with Brexit, and then call a GE?
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
The Scottish Court said an affidavit wasn’t essential but they mentioned avernments .
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
Well the 5 weeks was given a detailed run down this afternoon, the position seemingly being the Scottish court misunderstood the workings of parliament and that its 7 days not 5 weeks due to parliament not being able to be recalled during conference season to do the prorogation......
That is bollocks, they did not prorogue for a few days , they did it for 5 weeks, there was no prorogue for conference
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.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
Once you get spivs and conmen running the show , there are no gentlemanly rules.
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
The Scottish Court said an affidavit wasn’t essential but they mentioned avernments .
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
Well the 5 weeks was given a detailed run down this afternoon, the position seemingly being the Scottish court misunderstood the workings of parliament and that its 7 days not 5 weeks due to parliament not being able to be recalled during conference season to do the prorogation......
That is bollocks, they did not prorogue for a few days , they did it for 5 weeks, there was no prorogue for conference
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.
Surely a referendum for a republic would be perfectly legal? (OK, not so exciting ...)
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
The Scottish Court said an affidavit wasn’t essential but they mentioned avernments .
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
Well the 5 weeks was given a detailed run down this afternoon, the position seemingly being the Scottish court misunderstood the workings of parliament and that its 7 days not 5 weeks due to parliament not being able to be recalled during conference season to do the prorogation......
That is bollocks, they did not prorogue for a few days , they did it for 5 weeks, there was no prorogue for conference
Spot on. Anyone who thinks parliament is just the Commons doesn't understand Parliament.
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
The Scottish Court said an affidavit wasn’t essential but they mentioned avernments .
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
Well the 5 weeks was given a detailed run down this afternoon, the position seemingly being the Scottish court misunderstood the workings of parliament and that its 7 days not 5 weeks due to parliament not being able to be recalled during conference season to do the prorogation......
That is bollocks, they did not prorogue for a few days , they did it for 5 weeks, there was no prorogue for conference
Spot on. Anyone who thinks parliament is just the Commons doesn't understand Parliament.
The point was made that even if the commons had voted to stay open through cconference the Lords might well not have and hence no legislation could be passed.
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
Also, if HMG sends to court witness statements or affidavits as to the reasons for prorogation, it does rather undermine their point about non-justiciability. This is especially true if the bench is minded to consider justiciability alongside, rather than prior to, the merits of the prorogation advice.
It is well worth listening to Lord Sumption’s Reith Lectures on the role of law in politics, especially in view of today’s Supreme Court case. Currently available on iPlayer.
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.
Surely a referendum for a republic would be perfectly legal? (OK, not so exciting ...)
I'm not so sure: > it is treason felony to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend" to deprive the sovereign of the Crown.
To call for such a referendum would surely be to imagine and intend to deprive the sovereign of the Crown. Republicans like me are literally guilty of thought crime.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
I genuinely don't know what will happen here. I hate uncertainty...
That is a very odd sentence coming from a statistician. If there was no uncertainty, you would have no job.
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
The Scottish Court said an affidavit wasn’t essential but they mentioned avernments .
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
Well the 5 weeks was given a detailed run down this afternoon, the position seemingly being the Scottish court misunderstood the workings of parliament and that its 7 days not 5 weeks due to parliament not being able to be recalled during conference season to do the prorogation......
That is bollocks, they did not prorogue for a few days , they did it for 5 weeks, there was no prorogue for conference
Spot on. Anyone who thinks parliament is just the Commons doesn't understand Parliament.
The point was made that even if the commons had voted to stay open through cconference the Lords might well not have and hence no legislation could be passed.
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
It is well worth listening to Lord Sumption’s Reith Lectures on the role of law in politics, especially in view of today’s Supreme Court case. Currently available on iPlayer.
Good recommendation. Also available through podcast apps, if you don't fancy registering with the BBC.
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.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
Yeah, I'm certainly not advocating for the former. The latter is exactly what's needed. Odd that you think the role ought to bring with it international fame. An unobtrusive arbiter is what's needed. The way the queen currently plays it is good, we just need to be able to remove the head of state periodically to make sure we don't land up with some idiot who meddles and can't be removed. Because we are going to get that sooner rather than later.
I think our monarchy helps us punch significantly above our weight on the world stage, and is a great unifier for national events. It punctuates our national life from top to toe, and anchors our sense of self as a polity.
A republic is a really shit idea. It would take all the colour, fun, history and ceremony out of our public life too and make Britain a more anodyne, insipid and less interesting place.
No-one normal agitates about this stuff. They just want the monarchs to play by the rules and have a fair ear for both blending tradition and keeping up with the times.
On topic this is such a consistent market failure. Those who are engaged in something always seem to over estimate the probability of developments. They look at the situation and it seems unsustainable to them. They conclude that things are bound to change and they completely underestimate inertia. It’s a money making opportunity but it is so counter intuitive to the participants on this site I wonder how many take advantage and how often.
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.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
Maybe Cummings plan is to goad the opposition into voting for an election, by making them think Boris is holed beneath the waterline and polls are moving their way, whilst secretly he’s looking at very different numbers to everyone else?
Then again maybe not and he is just another donkey worshipped on pb
He’s a very flawed man.
But he’s very intelligent and has a campaign record that speaks for itself, so he’s certainly not a donkey.
I would never make the mistake of underestimating him.
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.
Surely a referendum for a republic would be perfectly legal? (OK, not so exciting ...)
I'm not so sure: > it is treason felony to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend" to deprive the sovereign of the Crown.
To call for such a referendum would surely be to imagine and intend to deprive the sovereign of the Crown. Republicans like me are literally guilty of thought crime.
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.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
Yeah, I'm certainly not advocating for the former. The latter is exactly what's needed. Odd that you think the role ought to bring with it international fame. An unobtrusive arbiter is what's needed. The way the queen currently plays it is good, we just need to be able to remove the head of state periodically to make sure we don't land up with some idiot who meddles and can't be removed. Because we are going to get that sooner rather than later.
I think our monarchy helps us punch significantly above our weight on the world stage, and is a great unifier for national events. It punctuates our national life from top to toe, and anchors our sense of self as a polity.
A republic is a really shit idea. It would take all the colour, fun, history and ceremony out of our public life too and make Britain a more anodyne, insipid and less interesting place.
No-one normal agitates about this stuff. They just want the monarchs to play by the rules and have a fair ear for both blending tradition and keeping up with the times.
We couldn't punch our way out of a wet paper bag nowadays, we are ridiculed all over the place from Iran to Luxembourg. Get a grip.
On topic this is such a consistent market failure. Those who are engaged in something always seem to over estimate the probability of developments. They look at the situation and it seems unsustainable to them. They conclude that things are bound to change and they completely underestimate inertia. It’s a money making opportunity but it is so counter intuitive to the participants on this site I wonder how many take advantage and how often.
David, can you not wangle yourself into the Wings appeal case, lots of money to be made there, seems to be more like Vegas than High Court with the costs being splashed about
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.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
er.
I think our monarchy helps us punch significantly above our weight on the world stage, and is a great unifier for national events. It punctuates our national life from top to toe, and anchors our sense of self as a polity.
A republic is a really shit idea. It would take all the colour, fun, history and ceremony out of our public life too and make Britain a more anodyne, insipid and less interesting place.
No-one normal agitates about this stuff. They just want the monarchs to play by the rules and have a fair ear for both blending tradition and keeping up with the times.
We couldn't punch our way out of a wet paper bag nowadays, we are ridiculed all over the place from Iran to Luxembourg. Get a grip.
The UK both overstates and understates its influence at the same time.
We are still a major influencer. We were ranked no.1 in soft power last year.
It’s just the delta between the top two and everyone else is vast.
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Interesting. You haven't actually offered any justification for his actions though, just launched into a rant about Boris, which isn't what my question was about.
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.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
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.
Surely a referendum for a republic would be perfectly legal? (OK, not so exciting ...)
I'm not so sure: > it is treason felony to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend" to deprive the sovereign of the Crown.
To call for such a referendum would surely be to imagine and intend to deprive the sovereign of the Crown. Republicans like me are literally guilty of thought crime.
The Queen said she was prepared to accept the referendum result if Australia chose to become a republic in 1999. May be her reaction would be different if the UK suggested a referendum on becoming a republic.
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Interesting. You haven't actually offered any justification for his actions though, just launched into a rant about Boris, which isn't what my question was about.
I fail to see what justification he had to miss the press conference other than he knew he had no answers so used a pathetic excuse to avoid being questioned by the press, simple as that .
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
The Scottish Court said an affidavit wasn’t essential but they mentioned avernments .
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
Well the 5 weeks was given a detailed run down this afternoon, the position seemingly being the Scottish court misunderstood the workings of parliament and that its 7 days not 5 weeks due to parliament not being able to be recalled during conference season to do the prorogation......
That is bollocks, they did not prorogue for a few days , they did it for 5 weeks, there was no prorogue for conference
Spot on , can not believe anyone beliefs Johnson's explanation.
As someone who considered May's proposals worse than either leaving properly or remaining, I find Johnson's emerging plan potentially quite attractive for a host of reasons. Leaving aside its merits per se, there is also a degree of compromise involved which has the potential to heal across the divisive split in our country, isolating extreme positions such as those of the Liberal and Brexit Parties. It would appeal to a lot of Remainers concerned to uphold the outcome of the referendum. I think that it would have a real chance of commanding a majority in our current parliament if the EU ever agreed to it.
And I think that if our current parliament had had the wisdom to allow our PM to go the EU summit in mid October with the ability to give the EU the choice between this or the UK leaving before any comprehensive agreement had been reached, then I think the EU would have accepted this for fear of something that for them was much worse.
Yet parliament has managed to scupper the UK's negotiating clout, so it's not going to fly for now. I think the EU will take their chances on the outcome of the inevitable GE, betting that Johnson won't come back with a strengthened position in parliament and will ask for no more than this if he does. We will see.
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.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
Surely the longer it goes without that election the give aways become stale? So at what point does the magic money tree spending announcements, those pre election softeners up need to be reannounced or extra spending added on them? Can they keep being re announced or will that look desperate and pathetic? Because all the voters will see is NHS winter crisis, education crisis, welfare in crisis etc?
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.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
It was a real eye opener a few weeks ago when some Republicans expressed dismay and pretended surprise that the Queen dies not exercise her own judgement. Supportive of the system ir not there were a lot faux shocked comments.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
They'll get a big sweetener for NI. Bridge/tunnel combo feasability study plus a Freeport status should get them over the line.
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.
Surely a referendum for a republic would be perfectly legal? (OK, not so exciting ...)
I'm not so sure: > it is treason felony to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend" to deprive the sovereign of the Crown.
To call for such a referendum would surely be to imagine and intend to deprive the sovereign of the Crown. Republicans like me are literally guilty of thought crime.
Ah!
AIUI that statute has to be read in the context of the Human Rights Act/ECHR, and so peacefully advocating a British republic is protected speech.
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Interesting. You haven't actually offered any justification for his actions though, just launched into a rant about Boris, which isn't what my question was about.
I fail to see what justification he had to miss the press conference other than he knew he had no answers so used a pathetic excuse to avoid being questioned by the press, simple as that .
He knew he was being set up. Entirely right of Boris to leave the Luxembourg git to stand alone.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
They'll get a big sweetener for NI. Bridge/tunnel combo feasability study plus a Freeport status should get them over the line.
Theyd sell their famously stubborn principals for a feasibility study?
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Interesting. You haven't actually offered any justification for his actions though, just launched into a rant about Boris, which isn't what my question was about.
I fail to see what justification he had to miss the press conference other than he knew he had no answers so used a pathetic excuse to avoid being questioned by the press, simple as that .
As someone who considered May's proposals worse than either leaving properly or remaining, I find Johnson's emerging plan potentially quite attractive for a host of reasons. Leaving aside its merits per se, there is also a degree of compromise involved which has the potential to heal across the divisive split in our country, isolating extreme positions such as those of the Liberal and Brexit Parties. It would appeal to a lot of Remainers concerned to uphold the outcome of the referendum. I think that it would have a real chance of commanding a majority in our current parliament if the EU ever agreed to it.
And I think that if our current parliament had had the wisdom to allow our PM to go the EU summit in mid October with the ability to give the EU the choice between this or the UK leaving before any comprehensive agreement had been reached, then I think the EU would have accepted this for fear of something that for them was much worse.
Yet parliament has managed to scupper the UK's negotiating clout, so it's not going to fly for now. I think the EU will take their chances on the outcome of the inevitable GE, betting that Johnson won't come back with a strengthened position in parliament and will ask for no more than this if he does. We will see.
Personally, I would've probably voted for May's deal if I was an MP, but I wouldn't vote for Boris's deal if it's anything like what's described in the article.
I think the 'backstop' was the best part of May's deal: it meant things would never get too terrible even if a proper, permanent trade deal couldn't be agreed with the EU. Apparently, Boris would take that away, plus there'd be an even shorter transition period in order to do that permanent deal, and I'd trust him even less than I trusted May to stick to his word. No sale.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
They'll get a big sweetener for NI. Bridge/tunnel combo feasability study plus a Freeport status should get them over the line.
Theyd sell their famously stubborn principals for a feasibility study?
Well, any route has to work around the Beaufort Dyke and its vast tonnage of unexploded nasties. The geology might be rather taxing too as I understand it, with faults to cross. But the prize of being connected to the rest of the UK would be huge.
As someone who considered May's proposals worse than either leaving properly or remaining, I find Johnson's emerging plan potentially quite attractive for a host of reasons. Leaving aside its merits per se, there is also a degree of compromise involved which has the potential to heal across the divisive split in our country, isolating extreme positions such as those of the Liberal and Brexit Parties. It would appeal to a lot of Remainers concerned to uphold the outcome of the referendum. I think that it would have a real chance of commanding a majority in our current parliament if the EU ever agreed to it.
And I think that if our current parliament had had the wisdom to allow our PM to go the EU summit in mid October with the ability to give the EU the choice between this or the UK leaving before any comprehensive agreement had been reached, then I think the EU would have accepted this for fear of something that for them was much worse.
Yet parliament has managed to scupper the UK's negotiating clout, so it's not going to fly for now. I think the EU will take their chances on the outcome of the inevitable GE, betting that Johnson won't come back with a strengthened position in parliament and will ask for no more than this if he does. We will see.
Personally, I would've probably voted for May's deal if I was an MP, but I wouldn't vote for Boris's deal if it's anything like what's described in the article.
I think the 'backstop' was the best part of May's deal: it meant things would never get too terrible even if a proper, permanent trade deal couldn't be agreed with the EU. Apparently, Boris would take that away, plus there'd be an even shorter transition period in order to do that permanent deal, and I'd trust him even less than I trusted May to stick to his word. No sale.
Given barely any Labour MPs voted for May's Deal and a Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop is the only one the ERG and the DUP will vote for Boris is on the right track
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
They'll get a big sweetener for NI. Bridge/tunnel combo feasability study plus a Freeport status should get them over the line.
Theyd sell their famously stubborn principals for a feasibility study?
Well, any route has to work around the Beaufort Dyke and its vast tonnage of unexploded nasties. The geology might be rather taxing too as I understand it, with faults to cross. But the prize of being connected to the rest of the UK would be huge.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
They'll get a big sweetener for NI. Bridge/tunnel combo feasability study plus a Freeport status should get them over the line.
Theyd sell their famously stubborn principals for a feasibility study?
Well, any route has to work around the Beaufort Dyke and its vast tonnage of unexploded nasties. The geology might be rather taxing too as I understand it, with faults to cross. But the prize of being connected to the rest of the UK would be huge.
Are we going to try and finish the Giants Causeway?
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.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Interesting. You haven't actually offered any justification for his actions though, just launched into a rant about Boris, which isn't what my question was about.
I fail to see what justification he had to miss the press conference other than he knew he had no answers so used a pathetic excuse to avoid being questioned by the press, simple as that .
As someone who considered May's proposals worse than either leaving properly or remaining, I find Johnson's emerging plan potentially quite attractive for a host of reasons. Leaving aside its merits per se, there is also a degree of compromise involved which has the potential to heal across the divisive split in our country, isolating extreme positions such as those of the Liberal and Brexit Parties. It would appeal to a lot of Remainers concerned to uphold the outcome of the referendum. I think that it would have a real chance of commanding a majority in our current parliament if the EU ever agreed to it.
And I think that if our current parliament had had the wisdom to allow our PM to go the EU summit in mid October with the ability to give the EU the choice between this or the UK leaving before any comprehensive agreement had been reached, then I think the EU would have accepted this for fear of something that for them was much worse.
Yet parliament has managed to scupper the UK's negotiating clout, so it's not going to fly for now. I think the EU will take their chances on the outcome of the inevitable GE, betting that Johnson won't come back with a strengthened position in parliament and will ask for no more than this if he does. We will see.
Pesto doesn't say what his source is for this. It makes a great difference whether this is coming from Dexeu, no10, commission or the Dail.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
When swine flu/foot in mouth affected the GB mainland, the DUP were very happy NI was treated differently.
the Pesto article states no customs union for NI or GB after transition period and by default if we are entering this stage then a FTA has not been agreed.
To me that means tariffs. Can not see that being acceptable to Leo.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
At the moment - you would know - isn’t the island of Ireland a single phytosanitary unit? So no change from status quo.
This has been an ongoing problem for several years. Balloons is the least of the problems. As far back as 2012 Popular Mechanics were reporting on this and its impact on MRI and other medical scanners and such basics as arc welding and the manufacture of silicon chips.
The US supplies 75% of the word's helium and its main source is just about depleted.
Comments
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal)
(2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1173995283153399808
I would not be surprised if John Major says the ONLY reason to do it is to avoid scrutiny.
That's why he did it, and that's why BoZo did it.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
Maybe it’s only sketched out at a high level?
I presume the EU would also want to agree if NI (and Stormont) wanted to diverge as that would create a delta over the border on the island of Ireland.
Which I think is a posh term for an explanation of why it needed to be 5 weeks. The documents produced do not explain the need for 5 weeks .
This does seem a bit bizarre because given the controversy surely they might have thought to make their case watertight .
As for tomorrow expect some fireworks because that’s when the governments actions are really going to be in the spotlight , the QCs for Cherry are going to try and portray Johnson as a liar but of course not in that direct type of language .
Which should tickle the EU’s tummies at some level.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
- driving lane
- overtaking lane
- idiot lane
Quite surreal, esp when the plane takes off and his sign off
https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/videos/473223380194747/
It’s not to give a flying shit what Parliament or anyone else in the “Establishment” do to delay or frustrate Brexit, because it all plays into his meme that it’s the people v. vested interests. If Boris gets a Deal and it’s more narrowly voted down than May’s, that helps him too.
It’s high risk though, because he can’t cash in without an election and Parliament are perfectly able to block one and, in extremis, there’s enough Tory MPs to VoNC Boris as Tory party leader too.
If he’s really playing 4D chess maybe he secretly *wants* a re-run of the referendum too so he can forcibly recode Parliament to get on with Brexit, and then call a GE?
cant quite see her as PM
> it is treason felony to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend" to deprive the sovereign of the Crown.
To call for such a referendum would surely be to imagine and intend to deprive the sovereign of the Crown. Republicans like me are literally guilty of thought crime.
MPs changing the terms of prorogation would need Queens Consent and not Royal Consent.
Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic.
How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Also available through podcast apps, if you don't fancy registering with the BBC.
A republic is a really shit idea. It would take all the colour, fun, history and ceremony out of our public life too and make Britain a more anodyne, insipid and less interesting place.
No-one normal agitates about this stuff. They just want the monarchs to play by the rules and have a fair ear for both blending tradition and keeping up with the times.
He’s a very flawed man.
But he’s very intelligent and has a campaign record that speaks for itself, so he’s certainly not a donkey.
I would never make the mistake of underestimating him.
We are still a major influencer. We were ranked no.1 in soft power last year.
It’s just the delta between the top two and everyone else is vast.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
@SouthamObserver that feature will save you hours!
As someone who considered May's proposals worse than either leaving properly or remaining, I find Johnson's emerging plan potentially quite attractive for a host of reasons. Leaving aside its merits per se, there is also a degree of compromise involved which has the potential to heal across the divisive split in our country, isolating extreme positions such as those of the Liberal and Brexit Parties. It would appeal to a lot of Remainers concerned to uphold the outcome of the referendum. I think that it would have a real chance of commanding a majority in our current parliament if the EU ever agreed to it.
And I think that if our current parliament had had the wisdom to allow our PM to go the EU summit in mid October with the ability to give the EU the choice between this or the UK leaving before any comprehensive agreement had been reached, then I think the EU would have accepted this for fear of something that for them was much worse.
Yet parliament has managed to scupper the UK's negotiating clout, so it's not going to fly for now. I think the EU will take their chances on the outcome of the inevitable GE, betting that Johnson won't come back with a strengthened position in parliament and will ask for no more than this if he does. We will see.
So at what point does the magic money tree spending announcements, those pre election softeners up need to be reannounced or extra spending added on them? Can they keep being re announced or will that look desperate and pathetic? Because all the voters will see is NHS winter crisis, education crisis, welfare in crisis etc?
I think the 'backstop' was the best part of May's deal: it meant things would never get too terrible even if a proper, permanent trade deal couldn't be agreed with the EU. Apparently, Boris would take that away, plus there'd be an even shorter transition period in order to do that permanent deal, and I'd trust him even less than I trusted May to stick to his word. No sale.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49715838
But that's inflation for you.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/italys-matteo-renzi-to-form-new-party-after-exiting-democratic-party/ar-AAHq7A0
To me that means tariffs. Can not see that being acceptable to Leo.
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/david-cameron-memoirs-for-the-record-austerity-george-osborne/
The US supplies 75% of the word's helium and its main source is just about depleted.