Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the court challenge to Theresa May’s Royal Prerogative pl
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the court challenge to Theresa May’s Royal Prerogative plan starting the latest Article 50 trigger date betting:
Although nothing on the scale of EURef or WH2016 the biggest home political betting market at the moment is on when Article 50 will be invoked thus triggering the formal process of the UK exit from the EU.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37640982
Just to be on the safe side....
Goes to show that financial investments in betting markets can go up or down.
https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/785516804227477504
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/533097/criminal-court-statistics-jan-mar-2016.pdf
Offence to completion in the magistrates’ courts
For cases in the magistrates’ courts, the (mean) average number of days from offence to completion increased by 7 days between Q1 2013 and Q4 2015, a 5% rise. Despite remaining at 158 days in both Q3 2015 and Q4 2015, the average increased by a further 5 days to 163 days in Q1 2016.
Crown Court criminal cases - First listing in the magistrates’ courts to completion in the Crown Court (figure 12)
For cases completing at the Crown Court, the average number of days from first listing to completion increased from 152 to 204 days between Q3 2013 and Q2 2015, followed by a decrease to 183 days in Q1 2016.
Sovereignty does not reside in Parliament - it resides in the people. That is why they will rightly lose their battle to pretend that they represent us beyond that which we represent ourselves.
Having just watched the video from the last thread I hate to disagree with the nice lady from LSE but I think it is a mistake to see Republican voters on some kind of spectrum where Paul Ryan is a 'centrist' and Trump is a hard right candidate. In some respects that may be true but I think it is to misunderstand Trump's support. People aren't supporting him because they thought that the Ryan plan was too soft but because he is making an attempt to appeal to their economic and entitlement interests. Is a Republican establishment that can't appeal to middle class Americans really centrist?
I can see why people object to the 'C' word just as they object to the 'N' word since it seems to take a derogatory approach to femininity. Certainly when I was at University it was the one swear word that girls wouldn't use. I have heard ladies use it a few times since then though which makes me wonder if times have changed or if I'm just mixing in different company.
It's irrelevant whether Parliament needs to be consulted or not. It is a political mistake not to get Article 50 rubber stamped, and as soon as possible.
We've heard quite a bit about the Libertarian and Green candidates in the States, both of whom sound deeply unimpressive, but I had to check out Wikipedia for McMullin, who seems close to winning Utah. He sounds reactionary but sane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_McMullin
Has anyone heard him speak or have any views about him?
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep..... "clear!" *fump* ...beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep....
“If you choose to participate in Halloween activities, we encourage you to think about your choices of costumes and themes. Some Halloween costumes reinforce stereotypes of particular races, genders, cultures, or religions,” it continues. “Regardless of intent, these costumes can perpetuate negative stereotypes, causing harm and offense to groups of people.”
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/u-florida-offers-247-counseling-students-troubled-halloween-costumes/
Problem is, of course, that now it will look like a *limbdown. Such a stupid mistake to have made.
Signed ...... C*clefree
It's C-ist.
As a matter of law, the answer is not clear.
There are outstanding lawyers who in good faith disagree.
Because there is no exact precedent, the arguments on both sides draw on first principles.
Nobody can predict with certainty which way the court will go.
http://jackofkent.com/2016/10/why-the-article-50-case-may-be-the-most-important-constitutional-case-of-a-generation/
Honwst
To that end, it shouldn't grant a vote on Article 50 but it should be holding a full debate on what the terms - or at least the principles - of Brexit negotiations should be. The government needs parliament to have some kind of buy-in and ownership of the process.
That said, to my mind, the constitutional principle and the evidence of the case is overwhelmingly on the side of the government.
http://www.someecards.com/life/halloween/the-most-inappropriate-halloween-costumes-of-all-time/
Current politics says 'get Parliament's hands steeped in blood too'
Future politics says 'which Executive ever gave up power if it didn't have to?'
Constitutional reform and governance act Act 2010 Section 20:
4)The treaty may be ratified if—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why, and
(b)period B has expired without the House of Commons having resolved, within period B, that the treaty should not be ratified.
My reading of that is that the treaty is placed in the H of C library or before Parliament in the chamber for debate, and then Parliament may vote to reject it within the set time (21 sitting days). If they do not, then the government may count the Parliament as in assent and the treaty be ratified.
"but then I did go to a fancy dress party dressed as an ascending colon once:"
You despicable creature. Oh, the horror! All those young and impressionable students could have been harmed for life. Perhaps if they go for counselling, they should be advised to stay at home (preferably locked n a cupboard) until they're old enough to face the real world.
Surely it's a joke?
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
The Crown can contract treaties, which are subject to parliamentary approval. Triggering the provisions of those treaties though is, unless specified in legislation elsewhere or in an ad hoc vote in parliament, the business of the government alone.
In this case, parliament had the chance to define a process for the Brexit procedure, both when the Lisbon Treaty was incorporated into law and, more specifically, when the EURef bill was under consideration. No new procedure was specified and so the pre-existing arrangements should therefore continue to hold.
I might write about the topic this weekend depending on what happens in the Court.
Could the government have triggered A50 itself anyway? This court case challenges that. In which case, if successful, continued membership of the EU can only be decided in the courts. But which court? Isn't the ECJ superior to British courts?
IANAL obv.
Update - scrap that, I left Parliament out!
But for Mr and Mrs Public it is all about the optics. The idea of Parliament needing to have a vote on this Article 50 thing has taken hold and the government is in a lose-lose situation given the potential outcomes.
I once had a (semi) serious discussion with a consultant anaesthetist about the quantity of green dye we would have to inject into one of his housemen to enable him to take her to a Trekkie function as something green.
Unilever hits back in Tesco Marmite spat 'blaming Brexit for price hikes'
Unilever on Thursday pledged to play hardball in its stand-off with Tesco as the consumer goods giant demands higher prices.
"Let the dog see the rabbi...."
"Surely Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?"
I thought that was to keep the Catholics out?
The biggest threat to Brexit is not that the UK government fails to invoke Article 50. It is that the UK economic enters a serious recession in the next two years, the government falls, and is replaced by a pro-European one which "rescinds Brexit" using its mandate.
The cause of the recession might have nothing to do with Brexit: it could be a war in the Middle East that pushes up energy prices, or a credit crunch in China, for example.
The current MPs need to have Brexit blood on their hands, i.e. they need to have walked through the lobbies and acknowledged the will of the people. If they do not have that, they will find it much easier to row back later.
For that reason, I think the failure to include parliament in the discussions is a major political error.
Edit: Nor are we ruled by the Queen or her representative.
Jimmy Savile is a popular choice for fancy dress. Indeed, last year, one university Conservative association held a Jimmy Savile-themed party.
(Apologies. I believe that phrase is almost as banned on PB as the C word)
Those who would argue otherwise need to answer the question from where does the legitimacy upon which parliament's sovereignty come? Parliamentary sovereignty is a concept that predates referendums and needs amending to account for that innovation.
2. But let's pretend it won't be a thumping victory for the government. Mrs May then calls an election. Wins a massive majority with a manifesto that is explicit about the goals of Brexit, and therefore cannot be challenged in the Lords under the Salisbury convention.
Known as the 'Swiss roundabout' in tax circles I believe.
Catch 22 ?
You can only leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice with a ruling from the ECJ that you can do that.
May should stand her ground on this. The people are in control of the wave, and she is riding the crest of it.
That was the kick in the nads the establishment needed to be delivered in June.
Remainers should take it on the chin and wear sackcloth and ashes until they have the support of the public again.
By voting not to do so they would be giving the biggest two fingers to the referendum result and general populace imaginable.
She should call their bluff.