Wings over Scotland also commissioned polls earlier in 2018 with a similar result but linking specifically to Brexit views as I recall (I can't find the ref in a hurry).
They wouldn't, only if the choice was the UK in the EU or England and Wales only out of the EU.
In any case a 4.7% swing from the SNP to the Tories in an Aberdeen by election last night despite Brexit
The point is that the DUP is blocking their nice precious Brexit, no?
And aqs for the by election, it was not a swing from SNP to Tory but a swing from conservative sensu lato to LD on the raw data (assuming the usual meaning of 'Independent' in that context as someone effectively a Tory but unwilling to admit it, on which I stand to be corrected, ditto also if not first preference in previous election)
If the Tories are up 10% in Scotland at the next general election and the SNP up less than 1% as was the case in the Aberdeen by election last night, the Tories will be gaining SNP seats in Scotland not losing them
But I still don't understand the logic. It's not as if every constituency had a pretend tory standing last time who now pulls out for the next election. Unless you think Labour or the LDs - or Brexit - will enter an electoral pact with the SCUP?
I think bridge of Don was merely indicative as a tentative sign the ScotTory vote may be holding up better in NE Scotland, where they have that cluster of seats. If so it may mean that a national vote of say 20% might mean holding 4 or 5 seats rather than a couple
Thanks - certainly it did not collapse Labour style.
Yawn. Next Tweet from a bloke with an opinion please.
He's talking nonsense anyway. Boris needs to indicate that the Benn act will not stop us leaving, or (thanks to the pond life in the Commons) he will have no negotiating position at all. Therefore, clearly he needs to hint that there is a way, without laying it out in step by step instructions.
Is an Act that stops us leaving legal? I don't mean this Act in particular, but in general wouldn't that mean one parliament trying to bind another?
I find it quite surprising that no leavers have tried to bring a court action that we are already in the EU unlawfully, what with Mr Brown having signed on the dotted line without the promised referendum.
Good afternoon, everyone.
The concept of no Parliament being able to bind a successor is simply that an Act cannot stipulate that it may not be repealed by a future Parliament.
So you could, in theory, pass an Act requiring repeated extension of the leaving date (unless and until a deal is reached or the EU refuse an extension) and that could continue into a future Parliament. But, crucially, the future Parliament could change or repeal that Act.
And, of course, there is lots of legislation passed many years ago by previous Parliaments that "bind" Parliament to the extent that they impact on its process and what it and the Government is able to do (but which they could repeal). The European Communities Act 1972 to give one example, and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 to give another.
Thank you, that's interesting.
Was there ever a possibility of legal challenge to Mr Brown's signing us up without the promised referendum? I know they changed the name to get round those promises, but would that have stood up in court?
It was only a manifesto promise and those have no legal standing.
3. He voted to Remain but has accepted the referendum result. That does allow him to say to the Lib Dems that he respects the result unlike them.
I think you mean "unlike London voters, who still want to remain".
I'm not convinced that's a compelling electoral pitch.
Somewhere between 30-40% of Londoners support leaving
If the LDs and Labour chew each other up he could sneak through. Narrow path but not impossible
If Boris does manage to implement Brexit, I have a strong suspicion that many Remainers will be so dispirited that getting them to the polling booth at all will take quite some effort.
"What's the point? if they couldn't stop Brexit, with everything in their favour...."
You seem to have a very strange idea of how remainers think. Many millions of people in the country, perhaps even a majority, simply believe that the UK is economically better off in the EU.
None of that is going to change once we leave. There will be a strong movement to rejoin as soon as we have left. Given the demographics, I expect it will succeed at some point in the next decade or two unless Brexit proves to be a runaway success and I think the chances of that are fairly remote.
The strategic error the leavers are making is that they seem to believe that once we are out they can sit back and that's the end of the matter. The way the whole process has been conducted has pretty much ensured the issue won't go away.
Whichever government comes in after the Conservatives is likely to be committed to EFTA or a rejoin referendum at the very least.
Good luck flogging the reconditioned Betamax recorders of Rejoin.
We won't need much good luck if Brexit is the horlicks I am expecting it to be and half a million youngsters joining the electoral roll each year.
As I said, your complacency will be your downfall. You are so blinkered that you cannot conceive that having experienced Brexit there won't ever be a majority for rejoining.
Alternatively, the vast bulk of the population will never want to hear the two letters E and U mentioned in conjunction again......
Your misguided notion that people will give enough of a flying fuck to want to rejoin the EU will be the LibDem's downfall....
Wings over Scotland also commissioned polls earlier in 2018 with a similar result but linking specifically to Brexit views as I recall (I can't find the ref in a hurry).
They wouldn't, only if the choice was the UK in the EU or England and Wales only out of the EU.
In any case a 4.7% swing from the SNP to the Tories in an Aberdeen by election last night despite Brexit
The point is that the DUP is blocking their nice precious Brexit, no?
And aqs for the by election, it was not a swing from SNP to Tory but a swing from conservative sensu lato to LD on the raw data (assuming the usual meaning of 'Independent' in that context as someone effectively a Tory but unwilling to admit it, on which I stand to be corrected, ditto also if not first preference in previous election)
If the Tories are up 10% in Scotland at the next general election and the SNP up less than 1% as was the case in the Aberdeen by election last night, the Tories will be gaining SNP seats in Scotland not losing them
But I still don't understand the logic. It's not as if every constituency had a pretend tory standing last time who now pulls out for the next election. Unless you think Labour or the LDs - or Brexit - will enter an electoral pact with the SCUP?
Maybe not but even if the Tories stood still and the SNP won less than 1% more votes on 2017 all but 1 Tory seat in Scotland stays blue
The whole basis of the GFA is that both communities find a consensus. Not majority rule, minority be damned.
Mr Varadkar said there were five ways to avoid a hard border – the reunification of Ireland; the Irish Republic re-joining the UK; the UK remaining in the single market or customs union; the border backstop mechanism; or the UK reversing the Brexit decision.
“There are one in five ways that this can be done, and at least four of those would be acceptable to the Irish government, but the best one is of course a backstop or some form of backstop, and that’s what we are trying to achieve,” he said.
Not ruling out the Irish Republic re-joining the UK then
Let's see if the UK can reform itself into a federal republic first.
Wings over Scotland also commissioned polls earlier in 2018 with a similar result but linking specifically to Brexit views as I recall (I can't find the ref in a hurry).
They wouldn't, only if the choice was the UK in the EU or England and Wales only out of the EU.
In any case a 4.7% swing from the SNP to the Tories in an Aberdeen by election last night despite Brexit
The point is that the DUP is blocking their nice precious Brexit, no?
And aqs for the by election, it was not a swing from SNP to Tory but a swing from conservative sensu lato to LD on the raw data (assuming the usual meaning of 'Independent' in that context as someone effectively a Tory but unwilling to admit it, on which I stand to be corrected, ditto also if not first preference in previous election)
If the Tories are up 10% in Scotland at the next general election and the SNP up less than 1% as was the case in the Aberdeen by election last night, the Tories will be gaining SNP seats in Scotland not losing them
But I still don't understand the logic. It's not as if every constituency had a pretend tory standing last time who now pulls out for the next election. Unless you think Labour or the LDs - or Brexit - will enter an electoral pact with the SCUP?
I think bridge of Don was merely indicative as a tentative sign the ScotTory vote may be holding up better in NE Scotland, where they have that cluster of seats. If so it may mean that a national vote of say 20% might mean holding 4 or 5 seats rather than a couple
Thanks - certainly it did not collapse Labour style.
Indeed. Labour lost 5% or more in all 6 elections yesterday
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
The EU already negotiated a deal with the UK. That deal has failed to pass in the UK parliament, so it does seem appropriate that coming up with an alternative should fall to the UK. If the UK then brings a proposal that contains elements that the EU has already ruled out then we shouldn't be surprised if the EU asks us to think again. Also, as I understand it, the EU told the UK at the time that they offered an extension that it wouldn't reopen the withdrawal agreement, and the extension was agreed on that basis. And the Commission has no mandate from the EU27 to negotiate a new deal on its behalf. So I don't think the EU position should be a massive surprise to anyone.
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
We don't know what is going on in The Tunnel.
Just before Theresa May delivered a deal on the £39 billion, we were being constantly told that it was a lost cause.
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
The EU already negotiated a deal with the UK. That deal has failed to pass in the UK parliament, so it does seem appropriate that coming up with an alternative should fall to the UK. If the UK then brings a proposal that contains elements that the EU has already ruled out then we shouldn't be surprised if the EU asks us to think again. Also, as I understand it, the EU told the UK at the time that they offered an extension that it wouldn't reopen the withdrawal agreement, and the extension was agreed on that basis. And the Commission has no mandate from the EU27 to negotiate a new deal on its behalf. So I don't think the EU position should be a massive surprise to anyone.
The EU were naive if they thought that Mays deal could pass.
They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is!
History suggests they really don't.
They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)
They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.
As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.
When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
Vera Baird making a fool of herself on the PM programme and showing that she does not understand what it means to be an investigator.
Depressing.
She has a great facility to talk over and past her interlocutor, brooking no interruption.
I'd be less bothered by that if she were talking sense. But she isn't. And she's a lawyer too. She ought to know better.
The reaction to the Henriques report has, sadly, been the predictable rubbishing of his sensible recommendations. The police's behaviour ought to be a national scandal.
3. He voted to Remain but has accepted the referendum result. That does allow him to say to the Lib Dems that he respects the result unlike them.
I think you mean "unlike London voters, who still want to remain".
I'm not convinced that's a compelling electoral pitch.
Somewhere between 30-40% of Londoners support leaving
If the LDs and Labour chew each other up he could sneak through. Narrow path but not impossible
If Boris does manage to implement Brexit, I have a strong suspicion that many Remainers will be so dispirited that getting them to the polling booth at all will take quite some effort.
"What's the point? if they couldn't stop Brexit, with everything in their favour...."
You seem to have a very strange idea of how remainers think. Many millions of people in the country, perhaps even a majority, simply believe that the UK is economically better off in the EU.
None of that is going to change once we leave. There will be a strong movement to rejoin as soon as we have left. Given the demographics, I expect it will succeed at some point in the next decade or two unless Brexit proves to be a runaway success and I think the chances of that are fairly remote.
The strategic error the leavers are making is that they seem to believe that once we are out they can sit back and that's the end of the matter. The way the whole process has been conducted has pretty much ensured the issue won't go away.
Whichever government comes in after the Conservatives is likely to be committed to EFTA or a rejoin referendum at the very least.
Good luck flogging the reconditioned Betamax recorders of Rejoin.
We won't need much good luck if Brexit is the horlicks I am expecting it to be and half a million youngsters joining the electoral roll each year.
As I said, your complacency will be your downfall. You are so blinkered that you cannot conceive that having experienced Brexit there won't ever be a majority for rejoining.
Alternatively, the vast bulk of the population will never want to hear the two letters E and U mentioned in conjunction again......
Your misguided notion that people will give enough of a flying fuck to want to rejoin the EU will be the LibDem's downfall....
Would there be anything to make the following letter to the EU be unlawful?
Dear Jean Claude Juncker and Ursula von der Leyen,
Under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act (No 2) 2019 the Parliament of Westminster has instructed the UK goverment to send you a letter requesting an extension, please see attached.
You are aware of the UK government's opinion regarding an extension but if an extension is granted the United Kingdom government will be required to nominate a new EU Commissioner. If an extension is granted then the United Kingdom intends to nominate Nigel Farage MEP as European Commissioner.
Your Sincerely, Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
If the nominee is required to be a Tory for some reason maybe replace with Bill Cash or Iain Duncan Smith etc
Yes, that would be completely unlawful - the Benn Act specifies every single word of the letter that Boris has to send:
The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.
....
SCHEDULE FORM OF LETTER FROM THE PRIME MINISTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL “Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
The EU already negotiated a deal with the UK. That deal has failed to pass in the UK parliament, so it does seem appropriate that coming up with an alternative should fall to the UK. If the UK then brings a proposal that contains elements that the EU has already ruled out then we shouldn't be surprised if the EU asks us to think again. Also, as I understand it, the EU told the UK at the time that they offered an extension that it wouldn't reopen the withdrawal agreement, and the extension was agreed on that basis. And the Commission has no mandate from the EU27 to negotiate a new deal on its behalf. So I don't think the EU position should be a massive surprise to anyone.
The EU were naive if they thought that Mays deal could pass.
Fools or knaves ?
Really? I seem to remember loads of people on here thought that May's deal would pass, at the third attempt at least. Were they all fools or knaves too? (Should add, I was never one of them, my view since the 2017 election was that a deal was impossible before another election).
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
We don't know what is going on in The Tunnel.
Just before Theresa May delivered a deal on the £39 billion, we were being constantly told that it was a lost cause.
They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is!
History suggests they really don't.
They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)
They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.
As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.
When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
What deal are you talking about? The deal which has been negotiated? And rejected?
Or are you simply assuming that proposals are the same as a deal?
Vera Baird making a fool of herself on the PM programme and showing that she does not understand what it means to be an investigator.
Depressing.
She has a great facility to talk over and past her interlocutor, brooking no interruption.
I'd be less bothered by that if she were talking sense. But she isn't. And she's a lawyer too. She ought to know better.
The reaction to the Henriques report has, sadly, been the predictable rubbishing of his sensible recommendations. The police's behaviour ought to be a national scandal.
It is a national scandal. Also that the officer in charge has been promoted since, as Harvey Proctor pointed out. Can Proctor sue the police for the ruination of his life?
I can only see one potential loophole in the Benn Act..
Even though the Act requires Boris to accept an extension offered to the end of January, can this actually be legally enforced when the EU Council meeting (and Boris accepting or rejecting the extension offer) will be happening on foreign soil?
I can only see one potential loophole in the Benn Act..
Even though the Act requires Boris to accept an extension offered to the end of January, can this actually be legally enforced when the EU Council meeting (and Boris accepting or rejecting the extension offer) will be happening on foreign soil?
The council will be over before the request is sent......
Mr. 1983, the law would appear to indicate no deal won't be happening soon, though.
Well, if I didn't have access to highly paid constitutional lawyers and all the levers of governmental power, I'd simply choose to disregard that law. If I did, I'd find an alternative way.
Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans look to be falling apart as the European commission has said there are no grounds to accept a request from the UK for intensive weekend negotiations two weeks before an EU summit.
EU sources said there remained considerable doubt as to whether there was any basis for such discussions, given the British prime minister’s insistence on there being a customs border on the island of Ireland.
Johnson’s chief negotiator, David Frost, along with a team of a dozen British officials, failed to convince their EU counterparts in Brussels on Friday that he had a mandate from Downing Street to compromise on what the EU sees as major flaws in the UK government’s proposals.
I can only see one potential loophole in the Benn Act..
Even though the Act requires Boris to accept an extension offered to the end of January, can this actually be legally enforced when the EU Council meeting (and Boris accepting or rejecting the extension offer) will be happening on foreign soil?
It doesn’t matter where he is , he could be held in contempt of court . He doesn’t have to be in the UK .
I can only see one potential loophole in the Benn Act..
Even though the Act requires Boris to accept an extension offered to the end of January, can this actually be legally enforced when the EU Council meeting (and Boris accepting or rejecting the extension offer) will be happening on foreign soil?
The council will be over before the request is sent......
Wouldn't there have to be an emergency Council meeting to ratify any extension (there was with May's requests, I think)? Maybe I'm totally wrong though.
I can only see one potential loophole in the Benn Act..
Even though the Act requires Boris to accept an extension offered to the end of January, can this actually be legally enforced when the EU Council meeting (and Boris accepting or rejecting the extension offer) will be happening on foreign soil?
It doesn’t matter where he is , he could be held in contempt of court . He doesn’t have to be in the UK .
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
The EU already negotiated a deal with the UK. That deal has failed to pass in the UK parliament, so it does seem appropriate that coming up with an alternative should fall to the UK. If the UK then brings a proposal that contains elements that the EU has already ruled out then we shouldn't be surprised if the EU asks us to think again. Also, as I understand it, the EU told the UK at the time that they offered an extension that it wouldn't reopen the withdrawal agreement, and the extension was agreed on that basis. And the Commission has no mandate from the EU27 to negotiate a new deal on its behalf. So I don't think the EU position should be a massive surprise to anyone.
They negotiated a deal that was not passable in the UK. Both sides should take responsibility for finding a more workable one. If the Commission needs a new mandate, they have had plenty of time to sort one out.
Vera Baird making a fool of herself on the PM programme and showing that she does not understand what it means to be an investigator.
Depressing.
She has a great facility to talk over and past her interlocutor, brooking no interruption.
I'd be less bothered by that if she were talking sense. But she isn't. And she's a lawyer too. She ought to know better.
The reaction to the Henriques report has, sadly, been the predictable rubbishing of his sensible recommendations. The police's behaviour ought to be a national scandal.
It should indeed. Just skimming the report...
https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/mps-publication-chapters-1---3-sir-richard-henriques-report.pdf I find it an error for two very senior officers who have never met a witness and, in the DAC’s case, not himself read either ‘Nick's’ interviews or blogs, to announce to the Press and public that they believe the witness. The two officers that had spent the most time with 'Nick', namely his interviewing officers, had also not read 'Nick’s’ Wiltshire interviews or his blogs. I learned for the first time during the Maxwellisation process that the DAC had not, at this stage, read any of ‘Nick’s’ interviews or his blogs but relied on other officers to inform him of their contents. In the context of this case, I consider this to be a serious failure. The case, at this stage, depended exclusively on ‘Nick’s’ evidence as did the obtaining of the search warrants. The District Judge relied on the fact that a DAC had considered the case when issuing the warrants. A careful analysis of all the interviews and the blogs would have demonstrated that ‘Nick’ was neither consistent nor credible....
Yes, that would be completely unlawful - the Benn Act specifies every single word of the letter that Boris has to send:
The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.
....
SCHEDULE FORM OF LETTER FROM THE PRIME MINISTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL “Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
The whole basis of the GFA is that both communities find a consensus. Not majority rule, minority be damned.
Mr Varadkar said there were five ways to avoid a hard border – the reunification of Ireland; the Irish Republic re-joining the UK; the UK remaining in the single market or customs union; the border backstop mechanism; or the UK reversing the Brexit decision.
“There are one in five ways that this can be done, and at least four of those would be acceptable to the Irish government, but the best one is of course a backstop or some form of backstop, and that’s what we are trying to achieve,” he said.
Not ruling out the Irish Republic re-joining the UK then
Let's see if the UK can reform itself into a federal republic first.
RE: Katie Hopkins. She will not do it even if she is wrong. She once said she would run up Whitehall if something happened: Naked with a sausage up her arse! She failed to fulfil the promise when she was proved wrong.... (only joking I don't love her I am just a pervert!)
Vera Baird making a fool of herself on the PM programme and showing that she does not understand what it means to be an investigator.
Depressing.
She has a great facility to talk over and past her interlocutor, brooking no interruption.
I'd be less bothered by that if she were talking sense. But she isn't. And she's a lawyer too. She ought to know better.
The reaction to the Henriques report has, sadly, been the predictable rubbishing of his sensible recommendations. The police's behaviour ought to be a national scandal.
It is a national scandal. Also that the officer in charge has been promoted since, as Harvey Proctor pointed out. Can Proctor sue the police for the ruination of his life?
He is suing them. And they are I understand making his lawsuit difficult, instead of paying up and settling the matter. He sounded like a broken man on the lunchtime news. Terrible to go through what he went through.
The whole basis of the GFA is that both communities find a consensus. Not majority rule, minority be damned.
Problems with Johnson's proposals are 1. Parties in Northern Ireland weren't consulted, except the DUP. 2. There is no consensus for the proposals. Northern Irish want to remain in the EU by a large majority. Failing that they prefer NI alignment with the EU to alignment with the UK. That option isn't available to them. 3. Only the DUP position gets a lock. This is minority rule, majority be damned. By far the worst option.
I can only see one potential loophole in the Benn Act..
Even though the Act requires Boris to accept an extension offered to the end of January, can this actually be legally enforced when the EU Council meeting (and Boris accepting or rejecting the extension offer) will be happening on foreign soil?
No loophole there.
Extraterritoriality only really applies to offences committed overseas. Normally, you wouldn't be guilty of an offence if you do something overseas which is illegal in Britain but not there (although legislation CAN explicitly apply to things done overseas - and does for things including sexual offences against children, female genital mutilation, and bribery).
But this isn't comparable. There's a positive obligation on Johnson to accept the offered extension, and if he fails to do it he's failed to do it. The reason for the failure (pen broken, on holiday at the time, visiting Mars) is totally irrelevant. If you're failing to do something, you're failing to do it everywhere - if I am not brushing my teeth now, I am not doing it in the location where I am, but I am also not doing it in your house, or in Perth, or anywhere else where I am not.
To take an example, if I am required to answer bail or make child maintenance payments or pay a bill on a particular date, it's completely irrelevant if I say I was in Outer Mongolia on that date.
Vera Baird making a fool of herself on the PM programme and showing that she does not understand what it means to be an investigator.
Depressing.
She has a great facility to talk over and past her interlocutor, brooking no interruption.
I'd be less bothered by that if she were talking sense. But she isn't. And she's a lawyer too. She ought to know better.
The reaction to the Henriques report has, sadly, been the predictable rubbishing of his sensible recommendations. The police's behaviour ought to be a national scandal.
It should indeed. Just skimming the report...
https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/mps-publication-chapters-1---3-sir-richard-henriques-report.pdf I find it an error for two very senior officers who have never met a witness and, in the DAC’s case, not himself read either ‘Nick's’ interviews or blogs, to announce to the Press and public that they believe the witness. The two officers that had spent the most time with 'Nick', namely his interviewing officers, had also not read 'Nick’s’ Wiltshire interviews or his blogs. I learned for the first time during the Maxwellisation process that the DAC had not, at this stage, read any of ‘Nick’s’ interviews or his blogs but relied on other officers to inform him of their contents. In the context of this case, I consider this to be a serious failure. The case, at this stage, depended exclusively on ‘Nick’s’ evidence as did the obtaining of the search warrants. The District Judge relied on the fact that a DAC had considered the case when issuing the warrants. A careful analysis of all the interviews and the blogs would have demonstrated that ‘Nick’ was neither consistent nor credible....
Indeed. And those failings led to the police acting unlawfully.
As bad is to announce that the allegations were "true". Two things wrong with this: this is not the job of the police but the courts. Second, as Proctor pointed out, it meant that they were stating that he was a murderer of small children, about as defamatory a statement as it is possible to make.
The police simply seem to have forgotten the basics of what they are about and the law.
Heads should roll in the police. That they haven't is itself a scandal.
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
But he won't be able to, any more than he was able to break the law on prorogations (despite being fully "prepared" to do so)...
Vera Baird making a fool of herself on the PM programme and showing that she does not understand what it means to be an investigator.
Depressing.
She has a great facility to talk over and past her interlocutor, brooking no interruption.
I'd be less bothered by that if she were talking sense. But she isn't. And she's a lawyer too. She ought to know better.
The reaction to the Henriques report has, sadly, been the predictable rubbishing of his sensible recommendations. The police's behaviour ought to be a national scandal.
It should indeed. Just skimming the report...
https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/mps-publication-chapters-1---3-sir-richard-henriques-report.pdf I find it an error for two very senior officers who have never met a witness and, in the DAC’s case, not himself read either ‘Nick's’ interviews or blogs, to announce to the Press and public that they believe the witness. The two officers that had spent the most time with 'Nick', namely his interviewing officers, had also not read 'Nick’s’ Wiltshire interviews or his blogs. I learned for the first time during the Maxwellisation process that the DAC had not, at this stage, read any of ‘Nick’s’ interviews or his blogs but relied on other officers to inform him of their contents. In the context of this case, I consider this to be a serious failure. The case, at this stage, depended exclusively on ‘Nick’s’ evidence as did the obtaining of the search warrants. The District Judge relied on the fact that a DAC had considered the case when issuing the warrants. A careful analysis of all the interviews and the blogs would have demonstrated that ‘Nick’ was neither consistent nor credible....
Indeed. And those failings led to the police acting unlawfully.
As bad is to announce that the allegations were "true". Two things wrong with this: this is not the job of the police but the courts. Second, as Proctor pointed out, it meant that they were stating that he was a murderer of small children, about as defamatory a statement as it is possible to make.
The police simply seem to have forgotten the basics of what they are about and the law.
Heads should roll in the police. That they haven't is itself a scandal.
The one thing institutions like the police and the prosecuting authorities shouldn't do is get caught up in the zeitgeist and enthusiasms of the moment. That's what they have been doing recently.
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
Would it have been possible to cram so much sheer stupidity into a single comment, even if one were trying?
The whole basis of the GFA is that both communities find a consensus. Not majority rule, minority be damned.
Problems with Johnson's proposals are 1. Parties in Northern Ireland weren't consulted, except the DUP. 2. There is no consensus for the proposals. Northern Irish want to remain in the EU by a large majority. Failing that they prefer NI alignment with the EU to alignment with the UK. That option isn't available to them. 3. Only the DUP position gets a lock. This is minority rule, majority be damned. By far the worst option.
Varadkar calls this correct, I think.
The Boris proposals include the NI in EU alignment. They are there for all regulations, just not customs. Also, everyone gets a lock - the province gets to choose whether it continues the arrangement or not.
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
So giving the DUP a veto isn’t seen as an insurmountable problem ? You want the referendum honoured but want to give the DUP a veto over the majority in NI !
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
In which case the Commons will pass the Boris Deal and the EU can then be blamed for No Deal
What annoys me is the constant haughtiness from the EU and unwillingness to play an active role. The UK has come back with a proposal, and the EU just responds with "no, try again" rather than make a counter offer.
The EU already negotiated a deal with the UK. That deal has failed to pass in the UK parliament, so it does seem appropriate that coming up with an alternative should fall to the UK. If the UK then brings a proposal that contains elements that the EU has already ruled out then we shouldn't be surprised if the EU asks us to think again. Also, as I understand it, the EU told the UK at the time that they offered an extension that it wouldn't reopen the withdrawal agreement, and the extension was agreed on that basis. And the Commission has no mandate from the EU27 to negotiate a new deal on its behalf. So I don't think the EU position should be a massive surprise to anyone.
The EU were naive if they thought that Mays deal could pass.
Fools or knaves ?
Yes. It's their fault that they gave May what she asked for. And when she asked them to extend the area to cover the whole UK instead of just NI, well that was their fault too. And when we couldn't agree amongst ourselves and we asked for an extension, well that was their fault too. It's always somebody else's fault. Never our fault. We're special.
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
But he won't be able to, any more than he was able to break the law on prorogations (despite being fully "prepared" to do so)...
It's quite clear, even to a non expert like me, that we can be de jure members of the EU without being de facto members. We simply proceed with the No Deal scenario.
YouGov have disclosed that they have conducted a poll after the Conservative conference that shows Johnson's net rating at its least worst yet (-12, compared to -24 Swinson and -50 Corbyn).
The link in the article to the data tables for the poll is at the moment inactive - clearly they would also disclose GE voting intention polling that is due to be published over the weekend. The changes in favourability ratings in the latest poll support the expectation of a small post Conference Conservative polling bounce.
The whole basis of the GFA is that both communities find a consensus. Not majority rule, minority be damned.
Problems with Johnson's proposals are 1. Parties in Northern Ireland weren't consulted, except the DUP. 2. There is no consensus for the proposals. Northern Irish want to remain in the EU by a large majority. Failing that they prefer NI alignment with the EU to alignment with the UK. That option isn't available to them. 3. Only the DUP position gets a lock. This is minority rule, majority be damned. By far the worst option.
Varadkar calls this correct, I think.
The Boris proposals include the NI in EU alignment. They are there for all regulations, just not customs. Also, everyone gets a lock - the province gets to choose whether it continues the arrangement or not.
No it doesn’t . Because of the way Stormont is set up the DUP can veto continued alignment even if the majority want it to continue .
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
So giving the DUP a veto isn’t seen as an insurmountable problem ? You want the referendum honoured but want to give the DUP a veto over the majority in NI !
Can you explain this contradiction ?
How is that an insurmountable obstacle? It's a negotiating point. If that's the worst you can say the deal must be a work of genius.
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
Apart from the first sentence, this really is total batshit...
That is one big fuck off to the separatists and their collaborators in what is basically Aberdeen City. I tipped Tories from third for Aberdeen North and once my preferred bookmaker puts their prices up I will have a flutter.
SNP will struggle to hold onto their 35 (or whatever) in Scotland.
As a non-Tory, Rory fan, I think he would have been better to keep his powder dry.
People would forget about him, to be honest. I think this might prove canny. Also, IF he won, it's a very high profile position from which to sit out the Johnson years (just as it is for Khan and the Corbyn years).
Shaun Bailey is a fairly weak Conservative candidate. He might be an alright bloke but unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate a couple of times, pretty anonymous top-up GLA member - none of it's very high profile or impressive. He's struggling for donors and so on - if you want to put money into that sort of thing at this stage, Andy Field in a tight fight in the West Mids looks like a much more sensible investment.
I like Lib Dem Siobhan Benita, and hope she cuts through in what could be a decent cycle for the Lib Dems, but is she high on name recognition? Honestly, no.
I think it's quite plausible Stewart gets some momentum behind him. Don't think that will take him all the way, but I doubt he'll be embarrassed.
Also, "keep his powder dry" for what exactly? What's the better, more achievable job that'll keep him in the news which is on the horizon whilst he's outside the Tories?
They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is!
History suggests they really don't.
They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)
They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.
As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.
When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
As of this moment, no deal other than the WA exists. I know Boris has written proposals about the deal he would like to have, but neither Parliament nor the European Council nor the European Parliament have agreed to it. It's October 4th. We have twenty-seven days to deadline. We have little time to expend on dreams...
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
What makes you say that? Have you been there lately? I’m hearing they’re well ahead of where we are.
3. He voted to Remain but has accepted the referendum result. That does allow him to say to the Lib Dems that he respects the result unlike them.
I think you mean "unlike London voters, who still want to remain".
I'm not convinced that's a compelling electoral pitch.
Somewhere between 30-40% of Londoners support leaving
If the LDs and Labour chew each other up he could sneak through. Narrow path but not impossible
If Boris does manage to implement Brexit, I have a strong suspicion that many Remainers will be so dispirited that getting them to the polling booth at all will take quite some effort.
"What's the point? if they couldn't stop Brexit, with everything in their favour...."
You seem to have a very strange idea of how remainers think. Many millions of people in the country, perhaps even a majority, simply believe that the UK is economically better off in the EU.
None of that is going to change once we leave. There will be a strong movement to rejoin as soon as we have left. Given the demographics, I expect it will succeed at some point in the next decade or two unless Brexit proves to be a runaway success and I think the chances of that are fairly remote.
The strategic error the leavers are making is that they seem to believe that once we are out they can sit back and that's the end of the matter. The way the whole process has been conducted has pretty much ensured the issue won't go away.
Whichever government comes in after the Conservatives is likely to be committed to EFTA or a rejoin referendum at the very least.
This is correct. But the biggest danger is the EU having us back. If we flick from Europhilia to Euroscepticism every change of government they may just take a De Gaulle position. This is why it is so important for Remainers to accept the referendum and hold out an olive branch to Leavers. Because when we have the majority we will need the same.
If the legacy of the leavers is that the other 27 EU nations don't want us back then so be it. I was quite content to accept the result of the referendum up to the point when the leavers pivoted to telling us that No Deal was the only pure form of Brexit having campaigned on leaving with a deal. For me at least all bets were off at that stage.
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
So giving the DUP a veto isn’t seen as an insurmountable problem ? You want the referendum honoured but want to give the DUP a veto over the majority in NI !
Can you explain this contradiction ?
There is a basic principle in the GFA that the consent of both communities is required.
"given the DUP a veto" is the same as "giving SF a veto"
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
What makes you say that? Have you been there lately? I’m hearing they’re well ahead of where we are.
Luckyguy lives under a rock reading the Daily Express and conspiracy sites.
The rock protects him from satellites and contrails; MI5 have had a microphone in the rock for 8 years.
As a non-Tory, Rory fan, I think he would have been better to keep his powder dry.
People would forget about him, to be honest. I think this might prove canny. Also, IF he won, it's a very high profile position from which to sit out the Johnson years (just as it is for Khan and the Corbyn years).
Shaun Bailey is a fairly weak Conservative candidate. He might be an alright bloke but unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate a couple of times, pretty anonymous top-up GLA member - none of it's very high profile or impressive. He's struggling for donors and so on - if you want to put money into that sort of thing at this stage, Andy Field in a tight fight in the West Mids looks like a much more sensible investment.
I like Lib Dem Siobhan Benita, and hope she cuts through in what could be a decent cycle for the Lib Dems, but is she high on name recognition? Honestly, no.
I think it's quite plausible Stewart gets some momentum behind him. Don't think that will take him all the way, but I doubt he'll be embarrassed.
Also, "keep his powder dry" for what exactly? What's the better, more achievable job that'll keep him in the news which is on the horizon whilst he's outside the Tories?
I was advised about ten years ago that after my contact details I should start with a Personal Statement. I always thought this was a bit namby pampy but that's what I was advised. Is this still de riguer/the way to go???
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is!
History suggests they really don't.
They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)
They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.
As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.
When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
As of this moment, no deal other than the WA exists. I know Boris has written proposals about the deal he would like to have, but neither Parliament nor the European Council nor the European Parliament have agreed to it. It's October 4th. We have twenty-seven days to deadline. We have little time to expend on dreams...
The WA isn't "a deal" according to the definitions of some on here.
It was "a proposal" by the former PM which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament.
Alternatively, the vast bulk of the population will never want to hear the two letters E and U mentioned in conjunction again......
Your misguided notion that people will give enough of a flying fuck to want to rejoin the EU will be the LibDem's downfall....
You are completely ignoring the demographics and assuming that people are going to love Brexit once they actually experience it.
From the moment Brexit occurs (if it ever does) every problem will be firmly blamed on Brexit. Whether it is correct or not doesn't matter, that play has been learned from the eurosceptics who blamed everything on the EU.
It's pretty clear that once Corbyn goes Labour as well as the LD's, SNP and Greens will all be firmly in favour of a rejoin referendum. The latest polling already shows a 9% majority believing that Brexit was a mistake. Time will tell but my money is on us rejoining within 20 years.
So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.
But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.
So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.
But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.
Then we have a GE.
The EU would be less than cooperative with that approach, and it would destroy those party to it
I was advised about ten years ago that after my contact details I should start with a Personal Statement. I always thought this was a bit namby pampy but that's what I was advised. Is this still de riguer/the way to go???
That's how I start:
'Sanderson Rentool is a card-carrying eco-socialist who would like to see humankind become extinct. He holds one of those wanky PPE degrees and spends a lot of time on PB.'
So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.
But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.
Then we have a GE.
I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
As a non-Tory, Rory fan, I think he would have been better to keep his powder dry.
People would forget about him, to be honest. I think this might prove canny. Also, IF he won, it's a very high profile position from which to sit out the Johnson years (just as it is for Khan and the Corbyn years).
Shaun Bailey is a fairly weak Conservative candidate. He might be an alright bloke but unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate a couple of times, pretty anonymous top-up GLA member - none of it's very high profile or impressive. He's struggling for donors and so on - if you want to put money into that sort of thing at this stage, Andy Field in a tight fight in the West Mids looks like a much more sensible investment.
I like Lib Dem Siobhan Benita, and hope she cuts through in what could be a decent cycle for the Lib Dems, but is she high on name recognition? Honestly, no.
I think it's quite plausible Stewart gets some momentum behind him. Don't think that will take him all the way, but I doubt he'll be embarrassed.
Also, "keep his powder dry" for what exactly? What's the better, more achievable job that'll keep him in the news which is on the horizon whilst he's outside the Tories?
If the Tories were smart, Shaun would step back.
Not a serious option. The Tories can't possibly endorse someone whose view on the current PM (and ex-Mayor) is so negative and publicly expressed, and who they've expelled.
And Bailey is a fairly weak candidate but one who has in fact been selected by Tory members, he's remained loyal, done what he's been asked to do and so on.
If Bailey does fade behind Stewart, that's also embarrassing for the Conservatives, but not a disaster. Frank Dobson secured a pretty derisory 13% in 2000 as the official Labour candidate against Livingstone... but it didn't really harm Labour in London in the 2001 General Election.
YouGov have disclosed that they have conducted a poll after the Conservative conference that shows Johnson's net rating at its least worst yet (-12, compared to -24 Swinson and -50 Corbyn).
The link in the article to the data tables for the poll is at the moment inactive - clearly they would also disclose GE voting intention polling that is due to be published over the weekend. The changes in favourability ratings in the latest poll support the expectation of a small post Conference Conservative polling bounce.
Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.
I was advised about ten years ago that after my contact details I should start with a Personal Statement. I always thought this was a bit namby pampy but that's what I was advised. Is this still de riguer/the way to go???
That's how I start:
'Sanderson Rentool is a card-carrying eco-socialist who would like to see humankind become extinct. He holds one of those wanky PPE degrees and spends a lot of time on PB.'
Gets me an interview every time.
I guess I could go JBriskinindyref2 is a PB tory with no wanky PPE degree.
They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is!
History suggests they really don't.
They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)
They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.
As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.
When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
As of this moment, no deal other than the WA exists. I know Boris has written proposals about the deal he would like to have, but neither Parliament nor the European Council nor the European Parliament have agreed to it. It's October 4th. We have twenty-seven days to deadline. We have little time to expend on dreams...
The WA isn't "a deal" according to the definitions of some on here.
It was "a proposal" by the former PM which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament.
Fair point. Although that does make the situation worse, not better...
So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.
But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.
Then we have a GE.
I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
So giving the DUP a veto isn’t seen as an insurmountable problem ? You want the referendum honoured but want to give the DUP a veto over the majority in NI !
Can you explain this contradiction ?
There is a basic principle in the GFA that the consent of both communities is required.
"given the DUP a veto" is the same as "giving SF a veto"
Then change the rules and make it a simple majority . The problem for businesses though is you have uncertainty hanging over you every 4 years .
All polling shows a majority in NI support the backstop . The DUP think they have a divine right to special treatment .
As a non-Tory, Rory fan, I think he would have been better to keep his powder dry.
People would forget about him, to be honest. I think this might prove canny. Also, IF he won, it's a very high profile position from which to sit out the Johnson years (just as it is for Khan and the Corbyn years).
Shaun Bailey is a fairly weak Conservative candidate. He might be an alright bloke but unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate a couple of times, pretty anonymous top-up GLA member - none of it's very high profile or impressive. He's struggling for donors and so on - if you want to put money into that sort of thing at this stage, Andy Field in a tight fight in the West Mids looks like a much more sensible investment.
I like Lib Dem Siobhan Benita, and hope she cuts through in what could be a decent cycle for the Lib Dems, but is she high on name recognition? Honestly, no.
I think it's quite plausible Stewart gets some momentum behind him. Don't think that will take him all the way, but I doubt he'll be embarrassed.
Also, "keep his powder dry" for what exactly? What's the better, more achievable job that'll keep him in the news which is on the horizon whilst he's outside the Tories?
If the Tories were smart, Shaun would step back.
I know Shaun.
In all honesty, he’s a youth worker. Not a Parliamentary or mayoral candidate.
So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.
But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.
Then we have a GE.
I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
If we go out with no deal, we would have to rejoin (which means € + Schengen). Revoke is no longer an option.
So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.
But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.
Then we have a GE.
I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
I’m still unconvinced that EURef II would be an automatic remain win.
So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.
But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.
Then we have a GE.
I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
Second referendum on what? The EU wont negotiate with someone dicking about with article 50, theyll say you'll get your offer of a deal in 2 years we will enjoy your contributions until then.
It would be a more egregious abuse of power than prorogation 1
Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.
The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
Comments
Your misguided notion that people will give enough of a flying fuck to want to rejoin the EU will be the LibDem's downfall....
Also, as I understand it, the EU told the UK at the time that they offered an extension that it wouldn't reopen the withdrawal agreement, and the extension was agreed on that basis. And the Commission has no mandate from the EU27 to negotiate a new deal on its behalf. So I don't think the EU position should be a massive surprise to anyone.
Just before Theresa May delivered a deal on the £39 billion, we were being constantly told that it was a lost cause.
(If only!)
Fools or knaves ?
As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.
When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
The reaction to the Henriques report has, sadly, been the predictable rubbishing of his sensible recommendations. The police's behaviour ought to be a national scandal.
The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.
....
SCHEDULE
FORM OF LETTER FROM THE PRIME MINISTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
“Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/enacted/data.htm
Or are you simply assuming that proposals are the same as a deal?
Even though the Act requires Boris to accept an extension offered to the end of January, can this actually be legally enforced when the EU Council meeting (and Boris accepting or rejecting the extension offer) will be happening on foreign soil?
Our penny-pinching negotiators actually did rather well on that front, at least.
EU sources said there remained considerable doubt as to whether there was any basis for such discussions, given the British prime minister’s insistence on there being a customs border on the island of Ireland.
Johnson’s chief negotiator, David Frost, along with a team of a dozen British officials, failed to convince their EU counterparts in Brussels on Friday that he had a mandate from Downing Street to compromise on what the EU sees as major flaws in the UK government’s proposals.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/04/boris-johnson-brexit-plan-european-commission-no-grounds-weekend-negotiations
I know he's two faced, but otherwise I think I see some logistical challenges.
https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/mps-publication-chapters-1---3-sir-richard-henriques-report.pdf
I find it an error for two very senior officers who have never met a witness and, in the DAC’s case, not himself read either ‘Nick's’ interviews or blogs, to announce to the Press and public that they believe the witness. The two officers that had spent the most time with 'Nick', namely his interviewing officers, had also not read 'Nick’s’ Wiltshire interviews or his blogs.
I learned for the first time during the Maxwellisation process that the DAC had not, at this stage, read any of ‘Nick’s’ interviews or his blogs but relied on other officers to inform him of their contents.
In the context of this case, I consider this to be a serious failure. The case, at this stage, depended exclusively on ‘Nick’s’ evidence as did the obtaining of the search warrants. The District Judge relied on the fact that a DAC had considered the case when issuing the warrants.
A careful analysis of all the interviews and the blogs would have demonstrated that ‘Nick’ was neither consistent nor credible....
https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/1180141621679185922
She will not do it even if she is wrong. She once said she would run up Whitehall if something happened: Naked with a sausage up her arse! She failed to fulfil the promise when she was proved wrong....
1. Parties in Northern Ireland weren't consulted, except the DUP.
2. There is no consensus for the proposals. Northern Irish want to remain in the EU by a large majority. Failing that they prefer NI alignment with the EU to alignment with the UK. That option isn't available to them.
3. Only the DUP position gets a lock. This is minority rule, majority be damned. By far the worst option.
Varadkar calls this correct, I think.
Extraterritoriality only really applies to offences committed overseas. Normally, you wouldn't be guilty of an offence if you do something overseas which is illegal in Britain but not there (although legislation CAN explicitly apply to things done overseas - and does for things including sexual offences against children, female genital mutilation, and bribery).
But this isn't comparable. There's a positive obligation on Johnson to accept the offered extension, and if he fails to do it he's failed to do it. The reason for the failure (pen broken, on holiday at the time, visiting Mars) is totally irrelevant. If you're failing to do something, you're failing to do it everywhere - if I am not brushing my teeth now, I am not doing it in the location where I am, but I am also not doing it in your house, or in Perth, or anywhere else where I am not.
To take an example, if I am required to answer bail or make child maintenance payments or pay a bill on a particular date, it's completely irrelevant if I say I was in Outer Mongolia on that date.
As bad is to announce that the allegations were "true". Two things wrong with this: this is not the job of the police but the courts. Second, as Proctor pointed out, it meant that they were stating that he was a murderer of small children, about as defamatory a statement as it is possible to make.
The police simply seem to have forgotten the basics of what they are about and the law.
Heads should roll in the police. That they haven't is itself a scandal.
I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.
I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1180070120661618689
Can you explain this contradiction ?
Appeals to the faithful but no-one is.
(And socialism is a fucking nightmare. No way.)
The link in the article to the data tables for the poll is at the moment inactive - clearly they would also disclose GE voting intention polling that is due to be published over the weekend. The changes in favourability ratings in the latest poll support the expectation of a small post Conference Conservative polling bounce.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/04/conference-season-makes-little-difference-views-ma
That is one big fuck off to the separatists and their collaborators in what is basically Aberdeen City. I tipped Tories from third for Aberdeen North and once my preferred bookmaker puts their prices up I will have a flutter.
SNP will struggle to hold onto their 35 (or whatever) in Scotland.
SELL SNP
There’s an anti-Brexit one too. A professor at Oxford, I think, who keeps taking her kit off to point to anti-Brexit slogans on her tits.
Shaun Bailey is a fairly weak Conservative candidate. He might be an alright bloke but unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate a couple of times, pretty anonymous top-up GLA member - none of it's very high profile or impressive. He's struggling for donors and so on - if you want to put money into that sort of thing at this stage, Andy Field in a tight fight in the West Mids looks like a much more sensible investment.
I like Lib Dem Siobhan Benita, and hope she cuts through in what could be a decent cycle for the Lib Dems, but is she high on name recognition? Honestly, no.
I think it's quite plausible Stewart gets some momentum behind him. Don't think that will take him all the way, but I doubt he'll be embarrassed.
Also, "keep his powder dry" for what exactly? What's the better, more achievable job that'll keep him in the news which is on the horizon whilst he's outside the Tories?
Brexit might be embarrassing and facepalming but this country is functioning perfectly well.
What we really need is to listen to each other and do more for other parts of the country outside London and the South East.
"given the DUP a veto" is the same as "giving SF a veto"
The rock protects him from satellites and contrails; MI5 have had a microphone in the rock for 8 years.
I was advised about ten years ago that after my contact details I should start with a Personal Statement. I always thought this was a bit namby pampy but that's what I was advised. Is this still de riguer/the way to go???
It was "a proposal" by the former PM which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament.
From the moment Brexit occurs (if it ever does) every problem will be firmly blamed on Brexit. Whether it is correct or not doesn't matter, that play has been learned from the eurosceptics who blamed everything on the EU.
It's pretty clear that once Corbyn goes Labour as well as the LD's, SNP and Greens will all be firmly in favour of a rejoin referendum. The latest polling already shows a 9% majority believing that Brexit was a mistake. Time will tell but my money is on us rejoining within 20 years.
But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.
Then we have a GE.
I couldn’t stand it anymore so I laid the lot on offer.
'Sanderson Rentool is a card-carrying eco-socialist who would like to see humankind become extinct. He holds one of those wanky PPE degrees and spends a lot of time on PB.'
Gets me an interview every time.
And Bailey is a fairly weak candidate but one who has in fact been selected by Tory members, he's remained loyal, done what he's been asked to do and so on.
If Bailey does fade behind Stewart, that's also embarrassing for the Conservatives, but not a disaster. Frank Dobson secured a pretty derisory 13% in 2000 as the official Labour candidate against Livingstone... but it didn't really harm Labour in London in the 2001 General Election.
Any serious answers ?
All polling shows a majority in NI support the backstop . The DUP think they have a divine right to special treatment .
In all honesty, he’s a youth worker. Not a Parliamentary or mayoral candidate.
It would be a more egregious abuse of power than prorogation 1