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.
Comments
-
Clearly HM the Queen should invoke Article 50 in her Christmas Day message. That'll show them what sovereignty means.
0 -
THE C WORD ISN'T PERMITTED ON PB. IT LEADS TO A BAN. STOP USING IT. THANK YOU0
-
It's pronounced Ghina!PBModerator said:THE C WORD ISN'T PERMITTED ON PB. IT LEADS TO A BAN. STOP USING IT. THANK YOU
0 -
I don't suppose TM will be too fussed if the courts (or anyone else) delay her schedule.0
-
I've always hated cl*wns, so quite right.PBModerator said:THE C WORD ISN'T PERMITTED ON PB. IT LEADS TO A BAN. STOP USING IT. THANK YOU
0 -
Sorry. In her Chr*stm*s day message.PBModerator said:THE C WORD ISN'T PERMITTED ON PB. IT LEADS TO A BAN. STOP USING IT. THANK YOU
0 -
Didn't spot any figures on successful prosecutions in this piece on a spike in 'race hate' crimes following the referendum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-376409820 -
I'm liking the drop down menu, very nice.0
-
Would bring good cheer to the Commonwealth. And piss on Rejoiners' flaming Christmas puds....Ishmael_X said:Clearly HM the Queen should invoke Article 50 in her Christmas Day message. That'll show them what sovereignty means.
0 -
If they end up going to the big court, then it takes several months for the trial to begin.Morris_Dancer said:Didn't spot any figures on successful prosecutions in this piece on a spike in 'race hate' crimes following the referendum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-376409820 -
Sc*nthorpe.
Just to be on the safe side....0 -
Mr. Eagles, we'll see how the numbers look then, and whether the police have nudged them into the 'hate' crime category, as per:
https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/7855168042274775040 -
I bruised my *o**yx the other day. It still hurts.0
-
That's not exactly surprising, given it's just over three months' ago.Morris_Dancer said:Didn't spot any figures on successful prosecutions in this piece on a spike in 'race hate' crimes following the referendum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37640982
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 2016.0 -
Sorry for going off-topic so early, but what is the current feeling in Gibraltar on Brexit? Is it causing anyone to actually start to consider thinking about the hypothetical possibility of reverting to Spain, per the Treaty of Utrecht? Or is it still utterly unthinkable?GeoffM said:
That is an outstandingly magnificent idea.Ishmael_X said:Clearly HM the Queen should invoke Article 50 in her Christmas Day message. That'll show them what sovereignty means.
0 -
It's going to make it very difficult to discuss the Labour party if we are not allowed to use the word C*rbyn.0
-
Or even the word cr*p.Richard_Tyndall said:It's going to make it very difficult to discuss the Labour party if we are not allowed to use the word C*rbyn.
0 -
Bravo!Richard_Tyndall said:It's going to make it very difficult to discuss the Labour party if we are not allowed to use the word C*rbyn.
0 -
With c*ck-up banned it will be near impossibleCyclefree said:
Or even the word cr*p.Richard_Tyndall said:It's going to make it very difficult to discuss the Labour party if we are not allowed to use the word C*rbyn.
0 -
Is Cl*nt*n suitably enough censored?0
-
Yes, as no-one watches the Queen's speech and/or is pissed and/or asleep at the time it will be the perfect time to slip it under the radar.GeoffM said:
That is an outstandingly magnificent idea.Ishmael_X said:Clearly HM the Queen should invoke Article 50 in her Christmas Day message. That'll show them what sovereignty means.
0 -
This whole issue over Parliament and article 50 is a distraction, but is rather telling on the attitude of our current elected representatives. They think they are more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors, and that their will is superior because they have been elected.
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.0 -
Has anyone polled the public on their views of judges and/or MPs holding up Article 50?0
-
C*ckburn's P*ort.0
-
Is the Royal Prerogative issue over-rated? Ultimately if Parliament objects so strongly to the government's actions they should bring it down.
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.0 -
And as for C*nservative values (as epitomised by Andrew Strauss)...Jobabob said:
With c*ck-up banned it will be near impossibleCyclefree said:
Or even the word cr*p.Richard_Tyndall said:It's going to make it very difficult to discuss the Labour party if we are not allowed to use the word C*rbyn.
0 -
Why can't it stay in when we leave?RoyalBlue said:
Sorry for going off-topic so early, but what is the current feeling in Gibraltar on Brexit? Is it causing anyone to actually start to consider thinking about the hypothetical possibility of reverting to Spain, per the Treaty of Utrecht? Or is it still utterly unthinkable?GeoffM said:
That is an outstandingly magnificent idea.Ishmael_X said:Clearly HM the Queen should invoke Article 50 in her Christmas Day message. That'll show them what sovereignty means.
0 -
Plus for god's sake we need to get to @SeanT before his first post of the day.Cyclefree said:
Or even the word cr*p.Richard_Tyndall said:It's going to make it very difficult to discuss the Labour party if we are not allowed to use the word C*rbyn.
0 -
I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times already.
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.0 -
Or even..... *yclefree.Cyclefree said:
Or even the word cr*p.Richard_Tyndall said:It's going to make it very difficult to discuss the Labour party if we are not allowed to use the word C*rbyn.
0 -
FPT
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?0 -
A dyslexic might fail the C word test, whilst posting about Cnut The Great, King of England and Denmark.0
-
"...more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors" - well, I hope mine is, or else I wasted my visit to the Polling Station.TonyE said:This whole issue over Parliament and article 50 is a distraction, but is rather telling on the attitude of our current elected representatives. They think they are more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors, and that their will is superior because they have been elected.
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.0 -
Cou*ts always are a pain Too many lawyers.PBModerator said:THE C WORD ISN'T PERMITTED ON PB. IT LEADS TO A BAN. STOP USING IT. THANK YOU
0 -
I think Her Majesty should start asking everybody for three good reasons why she shouldn't....Ishmael_X said:Clearly HM the Queen should invoke Article 50 in her Christmas Day message. That'll show them what sovereignty means.
0 -
Re: graph drop down: is the graph for next UKIP leader actually a trace of the party's heartbeat?
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep..... "clear!" *fump* ...beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep....0 -
Argh
“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/0 -
If Denmark can be in and Greenland can be out, probably.JohnLilburne said:
Why can't it stay in when we leave?RoyalBlue said:
Sorry for going off-topic so early, but what is the current feeling in Gibraltar on Brexit? Is it causing anyone to actually start to consider thinking about the hypothetical possibility of reverting to Spain, per the Treaty of Utrecht? Or is it still utterly unthinkable?GeoffM said:
That is an outstandingly magnificent idea.Ishmael_X said:Clearly HM the Queen should invoke Article 50 in her Christmas Day message. That'll show them what sovereignty means.
0 -
I agree with @rcs1000, and have said as much previously: getting a rubber stamp (for surely that is what it will be: it would be ridiculous and wrong for MPs to dissent) from Parliament now avoids all kinds of issues down the line for Tezza and puts the issue to bed.
Problem is, of course, that now it will look like a *limbdown. Such a stupid mistake to have made.0 -
Now, now.....Charles said:
Cou*ts always are a pain Too many lawyers.PBModerator said:THE C WORD ISN'T PERMITTED ON PB. IT LEADS TO A BAN. STOP USING IT. THANK YOU
Signed ...... C*clefree0 -
C*rses!Moses_ said:
Or even..... *yclefree.Cyclefree said:
Or even the word cr*p.Richard_Tyndall said:It's going to make it very difficult to discuss the Labour party if we are not allowed to use the word C*rbyn.
It's C-ist.-1 -
JackoFKent on the Article 50 case:
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/0 -
@bbclaurak: Sturgeon says an independence referendum bill will be published next week - she has tricky balance to keep her supporters + public on side0
-
A *t* not an *r*...Cyclefree said:
Now, now.....Charles said:
Cou*ts always are a pain Too many lawyers.PBModerator said:THE C WORD ISN'T PERMITTED ON PB. IT LEADS TO A BAN. STOP USING IT. THANK YOU
Signed ...... C*clefree
Honwst
0 -
They would have to sell off individual street pavement bricks to have enough room to erect all the brass platesEssexit said:
If Denmark can be in and Greenland can be out, probably.JohnLilburne said:
Why can't it stay in when we leave?RoyalBlue said:
Sorry for going off-topic so early, but what is the current feeling in Gibraltar on Brexit? Is it causing anyone to actually start to consider thinking about the hypothetical possibility of reverting to Spain, per the Treaty of Utrecht? Or is it still utterly unthinkable?GeoffM said:
That is an outstandingly magnificent idea.Ishmael_X said:Clearly HM the Queen should invoke Article 50 in her Christmas Day message. That'll show them what sovereignty means.
0 -
But that implies that parliament is a rubber stamp. The government should be making it clear that it doesn't regard parliament in that light (whatever it actually feels).rcs1000 said:I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times already.
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.
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.0 -
I heard Jeremy Hunt took a train from Scunthorpe to Cockfosters once..0
-
No it is saying to MPs: please acknowledge the democratic process of the referendum.david_herdson said:
But that implies that parliament is a rubber stamp. The government should be making it clear that it doesn't regard parliament in that light (whatever it actually feels).rcs1000 said:I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times already.
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.
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.0 -
If you could predict it with certainty then there wouldn't be a need for a hearing.CarlottaVance said:JackoFKent on the Article 50 case:
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/
That said, to my mind, the constitutional principle and the evidence of the case is overwhelmingly on the side of the government.0 -
A few choice examples here. I quite like the giving birth one for its ingenuity, but then I did go to a fancy dress party dressed as an ascending colon once:PlatoSaid said:Argh
“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/
http://www.someecards.com/life/halloween/the-most-inappropriate-halloween-costumes-of-all-time/0 -
Isn't it a 'consultation paper' not a 'bill' - ie - talking about having one, rather than having one?Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon says an independence referendum bill will be published next week - she has tricky balance to keep her supporters + public on side
0 -
I think its finely balanced.david_herdson said:
If you could predict it with certainty then there wouldn't be a need for a hearing.CarlottaVance said:JackoFKent on the Article 50 case:
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/
That said, to my mind, the constitutional principle and the evidence of the case is overwhelmingly on the side of the government.
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?'0 -
@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'0
-
The real point at which Parliament will have a role is to ratify any agreement that is reached, because that is now under statutory requirement:TOPPING said:I agree with @rcs1000, and have said as much previously: getting a rubber stamp (for surely that is what it will be: it would be ridiculous and wrong for MPs to dissent) from Parliament now avoids all kinds of issues down the line for Tezza and puts the issue to bed.
Problem is, of course, that now it will look like a *limbdown. Such a stupid mistake to have made.
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.0 -
Funny thing is that one looks ruder when censored than uncensored. :-)Paul_Bedfordshire said:Is Cl*nt*n suitably enough censored?
0 -
Superman for me. Twin Towers was good too.foxinsoxuk said:
A few choice examples here. I quite like the giving birth one for its ingenuity, but then I did go to a fancy dress party dressed as an ascending colon once:PlatoSaid said:Argh
“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/
http://www.someecards.com/life/halloween/the-most-inappropriate-halloween-costumes-of-all-time/0 -
Dr Fox,
"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?0 -
Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/0 -
It's not about politics though, it's about the law and the constitution.CarlottaVance said:
I think its finely balanced.david_herdson said:
If you could predict it with certainty then there wouldn't be a need for a hearing.CarlottaVance said:JackoFKent on the Article 50 case:
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/
That said, to my mind, the constitutional principle and the evidence of the case is overwhelmingly on the side of the government.
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?'
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.0 -
Surely Parliament is soverign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?Innocent_Abroad said:
"...more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors" - well, I hope mine is, or else I wasted my visit to the Polling Station.TonyE said:This whole issue over Parliament and article 50 is a distraction, but is rather telling on the attitude of our current elected representatives. They think they are more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors, and that their will is superior because they have been elected.
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.
0 -
The referendum was advisory. Fine, put it to one side.
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!0 -
No, the people are sovereign, the Parliament only exercises power on their behalf.OldKingCole said:
Surely Parliament is soverign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?Innocent_Abroad said:
"...more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors" - well, I hope mine is, or else I wasted my visit to the Polling Station.TonyE said:This whole issue over Parliament and article 50 is a distraction, but is rather telling on the attitude of our current elected representatives. They think they are more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors, and that their will is superior because they have been elected.
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.0 -
Seen in a Liverpool pub a couple of years ago on the way to a fancy dress party. A man dressed as Jimmy Savile and four others dressed as schoolgirls.0
-
Yep good research (or knowledge).TonyE said:
The real point at which Parliament will have a role is to ratify any agreement that is reached, because that is now under statutory requirement:TOPPING said:I agree with @rcs1000, and have said as much previously: getting a rubber stamp (for surely that is what it will be: it would be ridiculous and wrong for MPs to dissent) from Parliament now avoids all kinds of issues down the line for Tezza and puts the issue to bed.
Problem is, of course, that now it will look like a *limbdown. Such a stupid mistake to have made.
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 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.0 -
CD13 said:
Dr Fox,
"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?
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.0 -
When in a hole:CarlottaVance said:Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
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.
0 -
Surely the final one was the result of a typo?foxinsoxuk said:
A few choice examples here. I quite like the giving birth one for its ingenuity, but then I did go to a fancy dress party dressed as an ascending colon once:PlatoSaid said:Argh
“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/
http://www.someecards.com/life/halloween/the-most-inappropriate-halloween-costumes-of-all-time/
"Let the dog see the rabbi...."0 -
No, Parliamentarians are there to make the decisions and while they may take the electors views into consideration, it is for MP’s to decide, given, allegedly, their greater knowledge and appreciation of the long-term consequences.TonyE said:
No, the people are sovereign, the Parliament only exercises power on their behalf.OldKingCole said:
Surely Parliament is soverign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?Innocent_Abroad said:
"...more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors" - well, I hope mine is, or else I wasted my visit to the Polling Station.TonyE said:This whole issue over Parliament and article 50 is a distraction, but is rather telling on the attitude of our current elected representatives. They think they are more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors, and that their will is superior because they have been elected.
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.0 -
Mr Cole,
"Surely Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?"
I thought that was to keep the Catholics out?0 -
My point is not about what is constitutionally required, but what is politically sensible.TonyE said:
The real point at which Parliament will have a role is to ratify any agreement that is reached, because that is now under statutory requirement:TOPPING said:I agree with @rcs1000, and have said as much previously: getting a rubber stamp (for surely that is what it will be: it would be ridiculous and wrong for MPs to dissent) from Parliament now avoids all kinds of issues down the line for Tezza and puts the issue to bed.
Problem is, of course, that now it will look like a *limbdown. Such a stupid mistake to have made.
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.
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.0 -
I'm not sure most people are actually aware of it. I think the government should ride it out and invoke article 50 at a time of its choosing. I don't think Parliament should be setting the parameters for negotiation, it has to be done behind closed doors, otherwise Parliament is hobbling the negotiators badly. (Edit - by asking parliament now, it knows in advance what it would ratify, removing the uncertainty as a tool for the negotiators)TOPPING said:
Yep good research (or knowledge).TonyE said:
The real point at which Parliament will have a role is to ratify any agreement that is reached, because that is now under statutory requirement:TOPPING said:I agree with @rcs1000, and have said as much previously: getting a rubber stamp (for surely that is what it will be: it would be ridiculous and wrong for MPs to dissent) from Parliament now avoids all kinds of issues down the line for Tezza and puts the issue to bed.
Problem is, of course, that now it will look like a *limbdown. Such a stupid mistake to have made.
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 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.0 -
Not to inflame the situation , when Dr Fox was an ascending colon it would be fine. I'd be concerned of he was transverse by the end of the evening.OldKingCole said:CD13 said:Dr Fox,
"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?
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.0 -
The government should just have the damn vote, do it now and get it over and done with. Any MP who votes against will be branded as quisling traitors anyway and will have to face the wrath of their voters. If it is lost then it is grounds for an election with a thumping *on majority vs *orbyn.0
-
And if they choose not to? If they are given a vote then either they have no option, in which case it is a sham, or they have a genuine option to reject the government's request. Why should they need to acknowledge (or more accurately, ratify) the result of a process which they themselves put in place?TOPPING said:
No it is saying to MPs: please acknowledge the democratic process of the referendum.david_herdson said:
But that implies that parliament is a rubber stamp. The government should be making it clear that it doesn't regard parliament in that light (whatever it actually feels).rcs1000 said:I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times already.
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.
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.0 -
That as well!CD13 said:Mr Cole,
"Surely Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?"
I thought that was to keep the Catholics out?0 -
I would hope that he wasn’t irritated, too.Charles said:
Not to inflame the situation , when Dr Fox was an ascending colon it would be fine. I'd be concerned of he was transverse by the end of the evening.OldKingCole said:CD13 said:Dr Fox,
"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?
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.0 -
We are a representative democracy. We vote for representatives who decide in our best interests (because often we are incapable of doing that ourselves because of complex tradeoffs). We are not, in law or in practice, a popular or Athenian democracy. That's a fact.TonyE said:
No, the people are sovereign, the Parliament only exercises power on their behalf.OldKingCole said:
Surely Parliament is soverign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?Innocent_Abroad said:
"...more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors" - well, I hope mine is, or else I wasted my visit to the Polling Station.TonyE said:This whole issue over Parliament and article 50 is a distraction, but is rather telling on the attitude of our current elected representatives. They think they are more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors, and that their will is superior because they have been elected.
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.
Edit: Nor are we ruled by the Queen or her representative.0 -
A couple of years ago, a student got kicked out of the Conservative Party for turning up to a function dressed as Madeleine McCann.CD13 said:Seen in a Liverpool pub a couple of years ago on the way to a fancy dress party. A man dressed as Jimmy Savile and four others dressed as schoolgirls.
Jimmy Savile is a popular choice for fancy dress. Indeed, last year, one university Conservative association held a Jimmy Savile-themed party.
0 -
This.rcs1000 said:I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times already.
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.
(Apologies. I believe that phrase is almost as banned on PB as the C word)0 -
Indeed, I'm not really sure what the logic is of the remainers who want a vote now. The inevitable cluster**** caused by even more uncertainty will be blamed solely on them.MaxPB said:The government should just have the damn vote, do it now and get it over and done with. Any MP who votes against will be branded as quisling traitors anyway and will have to face the wrath of their voters. If it is lost then it is grounds for an election with a thumping *on majority vs *orbyn.
0 -
This demonstrates the wisdom of having a quoted company name that is different from the product brand names.CarlottaVance said:
When in a hole:CarlottaVance said:Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
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.0 -
In general yes but not, I would argue, when a referendum has put a specific question to the people. In that case, parliament has been given specific instructions and its role is simply to implement the result of that vote.OldKingCole said:
No, Parliamentarians are there to make the decisions and while they may take the electors views into consideration, it is for MP’s to decide, given, allegedly, their greater knowledge and appreciation of the long-term consequences.TonyE said:
No, the people are sovereign, the Parliament only exercises power on their behalf.OldKingCole said:
Surely Parliament is soverign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?Innocent_Abroad said:
"...more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors" - well, I hope mine is, or else I wasted my visit to the Polling Station.TonyE said:This whole issue over Parliament and article 50 is a distraction, but is rather telling on the attitude of our current elected representatives. They think they are more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors, and that their will is superior because they have been elected.
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.
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.0 -
I can only begin to imagine the nuclear melt down on here and elsewhere had remain carried the day and Parliament overturned the people's decision and left anyway. Of course it would not have happened, it would not have been allowed to happen and the screaming of Remainers would make the present situation of ignoring the majority of the people's will positively benign in comparison.OldKingCole said:
No, Parliamentarians are there to make the decisions and while they may take the electors views into consideration, it is for MP’s to decide, given, allegedly, their greater knowledge and appreciation of the long-term consequences.TonyE said:
No, the people are sovereign, the Parliament only exercises power on their behalf.OldKingCole said:
Surely Parliament is soverign. Otherwise why did we have Glorious Revolution?Innocent_Abroad said:
"...more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors" - well, I hope mine is, or else I wasted my visit to the Polling Station.TonyE said:This whole issue over Parliament and article 50 is a distraction, but is rather telling on the attitude of our current elected representatives. They think they are more in tune with the needs of the country than their electors, and that their will is superior because they have been elected.
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.0 -
1. They won't. Are you really telling me that the MPs for Sunderland, with UKIP breathing down their necks, will vote against their constituents. And the vast, vast majority of Conservatives will vote for the motion. It would be 550-100.david_herdson said:
And if they choose not to? If they are given a vote then either they have no option, in which case it is a sham, or they have a genuine option to reject the government's request. Why should they need to acknowledge (or more accurately, ratify) the result of a process which they themselves put in place?TOPPING said:
No it is saying to MPs: please acknowledge the democratic process of the referendum.david_herdson said:
But that implies that parliament is a rubber stamp. The government should be making it clear that it doesn't regard parliament in that light (whatever it actually feels).rcs1000 said:I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times already.
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.
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.
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.0 -
CarlottaVance said:
Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
Known as the 'Swiss roundabout' in tax circles I believe.
0 -
Time to put a full stop to all this colon talk....OldKingCole said:
I would hope that he wasn’t irritated, too.Charles said:
Not to inflame the situation , when Dr Fox was an ascending colon it would be fine. I'd be concerned of he was transverse by the end of the evening.OldKingCole said:CD13 said:Dr Fox,
"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?
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.0 -
They need to be a bit careful. Remember what happened with Starbucks. Transfer pricing to their 'Swiss office' for tax purposes is rather frowned upon. It won't take long for a good Facebook campaign to get going. Though I have to admit that people like 38 degrees are going to be a bit torn on this one, like 'Stop the War' over Russia.David_Evershed said:
This demonstrates the wisdom of having a quoted company name that is different from the product brand names.CarlottaVance said:
When in a hole:CarlottaVance said:Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
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.0 -
geoffw said:
The referendum was advisory. Fine, put it to one side.
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!
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.
0 -
You went as Dr Liam foxinsoxuk, then ?foxinsoxuk said:
A few choice examples here. I quite like the giving birth one for its ingenuity, but then I did go to a fancy dress party dressed as an ascending colon once...PlatoSaid said:Argh
“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/0 -
Flora , Pot Noodle , Persil and Marmite - hardly going to be a stretch to boycott these chavvy brands is it ?TonyE said:
They need to be a bit careful. Remember what happened with Starbucks. Transfer pricing to their 'Swiss office' for tax purposes is rather frowned upon. It won't take long for a good Facebook campaign to get going. Though I have to admit that people like 38 degrees are going to be a bit torn on this one, like 'Stop the War' over Russia.David_Evershed said:
This demonstrates the wisdom of having a quoted company name that is different from the product brand names.CarlottaVance said:
When in a hole:CarlottaVance said:Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
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.0 -
They're trying to assert control.brokenwheel said:
Indeed, I'm not really sure what the logic is of the remainers who want a vote now. The inevitable cluster**** caused by even more uncertainty will be blamed solely on them.MaxPB said:The government should just have the damn vote, do it now and get it over and done with. Any MP who votes against will be branded as quisling traitors anyway and will have to face the wrath of their voters. If it is lost then it is grounds for an election with a thumping *on majority vs *orbyn.
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.0 -
Colon .....* C word alert* you are fined 5 *redits and yellow *arded.MarqueeMark said:
Time to put a full stop to all this colon talk....OldKingCole said:
I would hope that he wasn’t irritated, too.Charles said:
Not to inflame the situation , when Dr Fox was an ascending colon it would be fine. I'd be concerned of he was transverse by the end of the evening.OldKingCole said:CD13 said:Dr Fox,
"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?
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.0 -
I think a small sell spread bet in Unilever is in order....David_Evershed said:CarlottaVance said:Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
Known as the 'Swiss roundabout' in tax circles I believe.0 -
Remain want to give Mrs May permission to invoke article 50 before March.
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.0 -
No, I've started on that already, and as a heavy user of three of them!TGOHF said:
Flora , Pot Noodle , Persil and Marmite - hardly going to be a stretch to boycott these chavvy brands is it ?TonyE said:
They need to be a bit careful. Remember what happened with Starbucks. Transfer pricing to their 'Swiss office' for tax purposes is rather frowned upon. It won't take long for a good Facebook campaign to get going. Though I have to admit that people like 38 degrees are going to be a bit torn on this one, like 'Stop the War' over Russia.David_Evershed said:
This demonstrates the wisdom of having a quoted company name that is different from the product brand names.CarlottaVance said:
When in a hole:CarlottaVance said:Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
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.0 -
Hasn't it been proven that margarine is worse for you than butter ?TonyE said:
No, I've started on that already, and as a heavy user of three of them!TGOHF said:
Flora , Pot Noodle , Persil and Marmite - hardly going to be a stretch to boycott these chavvy brands is it ?TonyE said:
They need to be a bit careful. Remember what happened with Starbucks. Transfer pricing to their 'Swiss office' for tax purposes is rather frowned upon. It won't take long for a good Facebook campaign to get going. Though I have to admit that people like 38 degrees are going to be a bit torn on this one, like 'Stop the War' over Russia.David_Evershed said:
This demonstrates the wisdom of having a quoted company name that is different from the product brand names.CarlottaVance said:
When in a hole:CarlottaVance said:Unilever's day just got worse:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
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.0 -
Be careful - I have a pouch full of GI jokes.OldKingCole said:
I would hope that he wasn’t irritated, too.Charles said:
Not to inflame the situation , when Dr Fox was an ascending colon it would be fine. I'd be concerned of he was transverse by the end of the evening.OldKingCole said:CD13 said:Dr Fox,
"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?
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.0 -
That unfortunately would be seen as a precedent, then permanently restricting Prerogative, just as the vote on the Iraq war was seen as a precedent before all military action and has weakened this country significantly as an international power.TGOHF said:Remain want to give Mrs May permission to invoke article 50 before March.
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.0
