politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the court challenge to Theresa May’s Royal Prerogative pl
Comments
-
Bob Dylan's won a Nobel Prize -- who backed that?0
-
Shouldn't that be a *lusterfu*k?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.
0 -
Given that Labour policy is to accept the result wouldn't they whip the vote in favour?rcs1000 said:
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 -
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
-
It depends where you spread it!TGOHF said:
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.
Oh, and did you here about the colon who downsized into a semi?0 -
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
Bob Dylan Nobel Prize Winner, takes all sorts.
0 -
Someone failed to tell Sturgeon not to reveal her strategy
https://twitter.com/GabrielNeil/status/786509489201709056-1 -
I rather enjoy the (odd) pot noodle.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.
I did grow up on council estate though :-)0 -
You mean like the male catheter holders; known as Welsh letters; a French letter with a leek in it!Charles said:
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 -
0
-
Too risky.TonyE said:
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
Ah, but if supplies of Marmite and Pot Noodles run out, all due to Brexit.......TonyE said:
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.
0 -
16/1!DecrepitJohnL said:Bob Dylan's won a Nobel Prize -- who backed that?
0 -
This is not new legislation. It can be a straight up, down vote with no possibility of amendments.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
Article 50 enabling act?rcs1000 said:
This is not new legislation. It can be a straight up, down vote with no possibility of amendments.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
She hasn't read the Mail this morning then.....Alistair said:Someone failed to tell Sturgeon not to reveal her strategy
https://twitter.com/GabrielNeil/status/786509489201709056
We stand for a fairer, wealthier, outward looking, progressive Scotland.
http://www.snp.org/nicola_sturgeon_opening_address_20160 -
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.0 -
That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.TonyE said:
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
2016 - the LSD trip year.0
-
Agreed. May I be the first to suggest the Herdson Convention?david_herdson said:
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.0 -
Depeche Mode have a concert on 3rd June 2017 at the London Stadium. Tickets go on sale 9.00 am this Friday. In case anybody here is interested.....0
-
Point taken, even on this most fundamental of issues it's not a given that dissenters would be pressed into line.david_herdson said:
That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.TonyE said:
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
There will be no indy ref 2. She'd be too scared to lose it.CarlottaVance said:
She hasn't read the Mail this morning then.....Alistair said:Someone failed to tell Sturgeon not to reveal her strategy
https://twitter.com/GabrielNeil/status/786509489201709056
We stand for a fairer, wealthier, outward looking, progressive Scotland.
http://www.snp.org/nicola_sturgeon_opening_address_20160 -
Who knew there was a Nobel Prize for Singing Like A Chainsaw?dr_spyn said:Bob Dylan Nobel Prize Winner, takes all sorts.
0 -
Stephen Phillips in Sleaford and North Hykeham would be an interesting case.david_herdson said:
That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.TonyE said:
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
Sounds good to me.MaxPB said:
Article 50 enabling act?rcs1000 said:
This is not new legislation. It can be a straight up, down vote with no possibility of amendments.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.
(And as for the suggestions that the Lords could block it, I would point out that - given it could be a two paragraph bill - it could be put through the Commons three times in the space of 48 hours if necessary.)
All that being said, Mrs May has now set herself against getting Parliamentary approval. And, out of fear of being seen as weak, will not bend. This is not good news for Brexit, as the longer the time that passes between the referendum result and the Commons voting, the greater the risk of backsliding, and the greater the risk that external factors play a role.0 -
Good news about ING choosing London. Much chortling over here about the news of European job losses and hiring in London. Not on a personal level for the people losing their jobs, of course, but at the European politicians supposedly rolling out the red carpet.0
-
That hardly needs a convention - that is where we are.david_herdson said:
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
n.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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.
As the victors it is surprising that the pro-leave PB'ers are often so defensive on here. As things stand everything is heading towards A50 and Brexit, and it is difficult to see what they are worried about - except perhaps for some of the truths in 'project fear' actually coming to pass. Trying to close down discussion on an Internet forum isn't going to help with this, guys!
The interesting question is how bad things would have to get, in terms of the economic situation and outlook, for the Leavers to accept that it would be legitimate for the government to rethink where it's at. We are nowhere near such a situation now, nor is one expected or foreseeable - but surely Brexiters wouldn't insist on the referendum result being implemented were, hypothetically, the consequences of doing so very clearly going to be economically catastrophic? Of course even asking such a question will simply wind some of them up further, but it is interesting nevertheless.0 -
My MP. Given that he campaigned for Brexit I certainly don't think he would have any problems with either his local members or his local electorate. He is certainly not opposed to Brexit but wants Parliament to be the place to decide what form Brexit takes.tlg86 said:
Stephen Phillips in Sleaford and North Hykeham would be an interesting case.david_herdson said:
That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.TonyE said:
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.0 -
It's not where we are. Were it so, there'd be no talk about a vote in parliament because the electorate's decision would have been accepted as final.IanB2 said:
That hardly needs a convention - that is where we are.david_herdson said:
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
n.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:
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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.
[snip]
The interesting question is how bad things would have to get, in terms of the economic situation and outlook, for the Leavers to accept that it would be legitimate for the government to rethink where it's at. We are nowhere near such a situation now, nor is one expected or foreseeable - but surely Brexiters wouldn't insist on the referendum result being implemented were, hypothetically, the consequences of doing so very clearly going to be economically catastrophic? Of course even asking such a question will simply wind some of them up further, but it is interesting nevertheless.
As for reconsidering, once A50 is invoked, it's a one-way street; there is no way back. If things did get that bad then certainly a government or political party could campaign for re-entry but they'd need to be clear that it wouldn't be a return to the status quo ante. The UK would be applying for new membership with all that implies about the Euro and so on.0 -
Pennsylvania - Bloomberg - Sample 806 - 7-11 Oct
C**nton 51 .. Trump 42
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-13/pennsylvania-poll0 -
'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.0 -
I know you share his views on this, but I wonder how this would go down with his local party:Richard_Tyndall said:
My MP. Given that he campaigned for Brexit I certainly don't think he would have any problems with either his local members or his local electorate. He is certainly not opposed to Brexit but wants Parliament to be the place to decide what form Brexit takes.tlg86 said:
Stephen Phillips in Sleaford and North Hykeham would be an interesting case.david_herdson said:That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.
http://tinyurl.com/hw7eotx
Frankly, I didn’t think leave stood much of a chance. But I also thought that if there were a vote to leave the EU, the outward-looking, internationalist face of modern multicultural Britain would win through: that although we would leave the EU, we would remain in the single market to which the manifesto of every major political party at the last election committed us – a market on which our prosperity as a nation, and our ability to raise the taxes to pay for public services, is founded.
I'm not taking a view on who's right and who's wrong on this, but it seems to me he thinks we should be in the Single Market come what may. We all know that a government that takes that position will get nothing regarding the free movement of people.0 -
What a brilliant choice.dr_spyn said:Bob Dylan Nobel Prize Winner, takes all sorts.
I have a rather fine compendium of literature on my shelf and alongside classic playwrights, authors and poets there is a section on lyricists including Lennon and McCartney and Bob Dylan.
I think that is inspired.0 -
I don't think that's true. If the UK government fell during the two year negotiation period, and was replaced by a pro-EU one, then I think the EU would happily 'rescind' our exit. This would be achieved by agreeing an unlimited extension of the negotiating period, and then adjusting the treaties as necessary.david_herdson said:It's not where we are. Were it so, there'd be no talk about a vote in parliament because the electorate's decision would have been accepted as final.
As for reconsidering, once A50 is invoked, it's a one-way street; there is no way back. If things did get that bad then certainly a government or political party could campaign for re-entry but they'd need to be clear that it wouldn't be a return to the status quo ante. The UK would be applying for new membership with all that implies about the Euro and so on.
Which is why we need to get as many people having publicly bought into Brexit via voting on the Article 50 Enabling Bill.0 -
The 1949 Parliament Act allows the Lords to block legislation for a year, I think, irrespective of how many times the Commons votes for the measure.rcs1000 said:
Sounds good to me.MaxPB said:
Article 50 enabling act?rcs1000 said:
This is not new legislation. It can be a straight up, down vote with no possibility of amendments.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.
(And as for the suggestions that the Lords could block it, I would point out that - given it could be a two paragraph bill - it could be put through the Commons three times in the space of 48 hours if necessary.)
All that being said, Mrs May has now set herself against getting Parliamentary approval. And, out of fear of being seen as weak, will not bend. This is not good news for Brexit, as the longer the time that passes between the referendum result and the Commons voting, the greater the risk of backsliding, and the greater the risk that external factors play a role.0 -
So, a 3 point Trump lead once you take out all the Shy Trumpers?JackW said:Pennsylvania - Bloomberg - Sample 806 - 7-11 Oct
C**nton 51 .. Trump 42
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-13/pennsylvania-poll0 -
You are correct, and I am wrong.david_herdson said:
The 1949 Parliament Act allows the Lords to block legislation for a year, I think, irrespective of how many times the Commons votes for the measure.rcs1000 said:
Sounds good to me.MaxPB said:
Article 50 enabling act?rcs1000 said:
This is not new legislation. It can be a straight up, down vote with no possibility of amendments.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.
(And as for the suggestions that the Lords could block it, I would point out that - given it could be a two paragraph bill - it could be put through the Commons three times in the space of 48 hours if necessary.)
All that being said, Mrs May has now set herself against getting Parliamentary approval. And, out of fear of being seen as weak, will not bend. This is not good news for Brexit, as the longer the time that passes between the referendum result and the Commons voting, the greater the risk of backsliding, and the greater the risk that external factors play a role.0 -
Theoretically, yes, that's the route that could be followed but it'd need all 27 other members to agree to it - and that's not the least improbable contingency of the scenario.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's true. If the UK government fell during the two year negotiation period, and was replaced by a pro-EU one, then I think the EU would happily 'rescind' our exit. This would be achieved by agreeing an unlimited extension of the negotiating period, and then adjusting the treaties as necessary.david_herdson said:It's not where we are. Were it so, there'd be no talk about a vote in parliament because the electorate's decision would have been accepted as final.
As for reconsidering, once A50 is invoked, it's a one-way street; there is no way back. If things did get that bad then certainly a government or political party could campaign for re-entry but they'd need to be clear that it wouldn't be a return to the status quo ante. The UK would be applying for new membership with all that implies about the Euro and so on.
Which is why we need to get as many people having publicly bought into Brexit via voting on the Article 50 Enabling Bill.0 -
If TMay gets her way on this, and I think she will, then that will set the convention.david_herdson said:
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.
0 -
It doesn't matter, if the Lords tried to vote down a simple enabling act then the government would declare war on the Lords and stuff it with 300 new Tory peers. I don't see much chance of the Lords putting up an kind of fight.rcs1000 said:
You are correct, and I am wrong.david_herdson said:
The 1949 Parliament Act allows the Lords to block legislation for a year, I think, irrespective of how many times the Commons votes for the measure.rcs1000 said:
Sounds good to me.MaxPB said:
Article 50 enabling act?rcs1000 said:
This is not new legislation. It can be a straight up, down vote with no possibility of amendments.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.
(And as for the suggestions that the Lords could block it, I would point out that - given it could be a two paragraph bill - it could be put through the Commons three times in the space of 48 hours if necessary.)
All that being said, Mrs May has now set herself against getting Parliamentary approval. And, out of fear of being seen as weak, will not bend. This is not good news for Brexit, as the longer the time that passes between the referendum result and the Commons voting, the greater the risk of backsliding, and the greater the risk that external factors play a role.0 -
It is not the usual way it happens but 1 or 2 key statements could be taken at the selection/endorsement meeting of the Executive and the incumbent MP asked a Yes or No on them. The Executive can then decide to endorse or reject the MP.david_herdson said:
That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.TonyE said:
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.IanB2 said:
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.
0 -
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.0 -
Key is her margin swelling to 28 percentage points in four suburban counties that were once reliably Republican.619 said:
So, a 3 point Trump lead once you take out all the Shy Trumpers?JackW said:Pennsylvania - Bloomberg - Sample 806 - 7-11 Oct
C**nton 51 .. Trump 42
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-13/pennsylvania-poll0 -
Its a bit of a one off as we wont be having any more referendums anytime soon (next 20 years).0
-
She could even ask parliament now, but invoke with when she feels is appropriate, the motion would be that the House authorised[*] the prime minister to invoke Article 50 at a time of her choosing within the bounds of the current parliament.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.
[*] or substitute a similar word with the prefered nuance.0 -
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.0
-
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.david_herdson said:
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The government is enacting Brexit and that is fine, it's what people voted for (just). However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.0 -
I'm not sure they'd even need to do that. More likely the UK could just announce that they were withdrawing the notification and that would be that. The treaty doesn't say you can withdraw a notification but it also doesn't say you can't, and even if there was a possible legal case to get the ECJ to stipulate no-takesies-backsies, none of the member states would be interested in making enemies by bringing it.rcs1000 said:If the UK government fell during the two year negotiation period, and was replaced by a pro-EU one, then I think the EU would happily 'rescind' our exit. This would be achieved by agreeing an unlimited extension of the negotiating period, and then adjusting the treaties as necessary.
0 -
The imagined scenario may well come to pass - but it surely stands a much greater chance of doing so if negotiations begin with the UK being prepared to walk away & tough it out?tlg86 said:
I know you share his views on this, but I wonder how this would go down with his local party:Richard_Tyndall said:
My MP. Given that he campaigned for Brexit I certainly don't think he would have any problems with either his local members or his local electorate. He is certainly not opposed to Brexit but wants Parliament to be the place to decide what form Brexit takes.tlg86 said:
Stephen Phillips in Sleaford and North Hykeham would be an interesting case.david_herdson said:That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.
http://tinyurl.com/hw7eotx
Frankly, I didn’t think leave stood much of a chance. But I also thought that if there were a vote to leave the EU, the outward-looking, internationalist face of modern multicultural Britain would win through: that although we would leave the EU, we would remain in the single market to which the manifesto of every major political party at the last election committed us – a market on which our prosperity as a nation, and our ability to raise the taxes to pay for public services, is founded.
I'm not taking a view on who's right and who's wrong on this, but it seems to me he thinks we should be in the Single Market come what may. We all know that a government that takes that position will get nothing regarding the free movement of people.
I agree it would be good for parliament to be 'involved', but don't understand how that can really be achieved in any meaningful way. Even if they held sessions 'in camera' what was discussed would be bound to leak out.
The only meaningful way I can see would be for the EU negotiators to come & do the negotiating with the MPs as a body in the Commons. A recipe for a right old dog's breakfast of a result. Hardest Brexit of all, would be my guess.0 -
A 'convention' isn't really worth the paper it's written on.MikeSmithson said:
If TMay gets her way on this, and I think she will, then that will set the convention.david_herdson said:
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.0 -
Exactly.Indigo said:
She could even ask parliament now, but invoke with when she feels is appropriate, the motion would be that the House authorised[*] the prime minister to invoke Article 50 at a time of her choosing within the bounds of the current parliament.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.
[*] or substitute a similar word with the prefered nuance.0 -
If someone here wants to volunteer to write the pseudonymous letter to The Times, that'll change the constitution and that'll be that.david_herdson said:
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.0 -
Meh - the SNP will lose on the economic argument again - like last time.SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Infact once out of the EU their soup is even thinner.
0 -
''However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.''
Who is saying that?0 -
I'm pretty sure that would end up in the courts if it really came to it, just like the A50 process is at the moment.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's true. If the UK government fell during the two year negotiation period, and was replaced by a pro-EU one, then I think the EU would happily 'rescind' our exit. This would be achieved by agreeing an unlimited extension of the negotiating period, and then adjusting the treaties as necessary.david_herdson said:It's not where we are. Were it so, there'd be no talk about a vote in parliament because the electorate's decision would have been accepted as final.
As for reconsidering, once A50 is invoked, it's a one-way street; there is no way back. If things did get that bad then certainly a government or political party could campaign for re-entry but they'd need to be clear that it wouldn't be a return to the status quo ante. The UK would be applying for new membership with all that implies about the Euro and so on.
Which is why we need to get as many people having publicly bought into Brexit via voting on the Article 50 Enabling Bill.
I'm surprised the Government is fighting this so strongly - given the pain ahead, if they can't demonstrate they have the House of *ommons behind them, why would the EU take them seriously in negotiations? I can't see any issue with getting an A50 enabling act through, the risk is amendments to negotiatiing position the Government doesn't like - but surely a manageable risk? The die-hard remainers could vote against, but there's surely a comfortable majority for triggering one way or the other, when the only alternative is to reject a referendum. I'm sure the Lib Dems would throw in an amendment requiring an exit terms 2nd referendum, but hard to see anyone else taking it seriously.
P.S. If I'd known Marmite would be the first to go, I'd have considered voting leave myself, "Vote Leave, Shaft Marmite" Tempting!0 -
I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/0 -
The the referendum was advisory might be a legal fact; it's not a political one.logical_song said:
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.david_herdson said:
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The government is enacting Brexit and that is fine, it's what people voted for (just). However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.
And once A50 is signed then the journey cannot be changed in substance. The terms of exit might be up for grabs (but not that much - I have a TotalPolitics article in the pipeline on this point), but the fact of Brexit cannot meaningfully be changed. This isn't simply a political point but a legal one: the European Treaties lay out the process and that can't be set aside.0 -
Having 1) Read the views below and
2) Heard about the possibility of the court action on "a vote in parliament" heading into months of delay with Supreme court etc etc and
3) the threat of HoC and/or lords causing further delays (1 year) or overturning Brexit if we have an economic recession (due to global events),
... the best move by Mrs May is to have a quick GE and reset the HoC.0 -
Shares down 5% today.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/0 -
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.taffys said:
Shares down 5% today.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/0 -
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland.....SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
0 -
Sorry no.SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.0 -
Yep, my spread bet is in the blue already after just an hourMaxPB said:
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.taffys said:
Shares down 5% today.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/0 -
A visit from HMRC would seem the right move. They should start with a chat with Dave Lewis at Tesco to see what insights a 27 year old ex Unilever employee could provide.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
0 -
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.Moses_ said:
Sorry no.SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
0 -
And the moment we trigger A50, then the political effect is that Remainers will have to go the much further distance of becoming Rejoiners. With the Euro and looking like pussies and all that baggage. The rest of the EU will be able to flush our heads down the bogs on a daily basis. It will quieten down the great bulk of those wanting not to leave, but equally not wanting to pay the politically unacceptable price of rejoining.david_herdson said:
The the referendum was advisory might be a legal fact; it's not a political one.logical_song said:
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.david_herdson said:
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The government is enacting Brexit and that is fine, it's what people voted for (just). However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.
And once A50 is signed then the journey cannot be changed in substance. The terms of exit might be up for grabs (but not that much - I have a TotalPolitics article in the pipeline on this point), but the fact of Brexit cannot meaningfully be changed. This isn't simply a political point but a legal one: the European Treaties lay out the process and that can't be set aside.
Sod it, Prime Minister, let's just trigger Article 50.0 -
Dylan's Nobel Prize is for literature but it could equally be for peace.MarqueeMark said:
Who knew there was a Nobel Prize for Singing Like A Chainsaw?dr_spyn said:Bob Dylan Nobel Prize Winner, takes all sorts.
0 -
I think it's a bit mad to assume, hypothetically, that the British voters want to stay, the British government wants to stay, the governments of the EU want the British to stay, but something has been legally set in motion that cannot be changed. If everyone's cool with it they'll work something out.david_herdson said:
The the referendum was advisory might be a legal fact; it's not a political one.logical_song said:
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.david_herdson said:
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The government is enacting Brexit and that is fine, it's what people voted for (just). However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.
And once A50 is signed then the journey cannot be changed in substance. The terms of exit might be up for grabs (but not that much - I have a TotalPolitics article in the pipeline on this point), but the fact of Brexit cannot meaningfully be changed. This isn't simply a political point but a legal one: the European Treaties lay out the process and that can't be set aside.
The hurdle to this scenario is that British voters were never that into the EU in the first place, and show no signs of changing their minds.0 -
I don't think that hold. A50 is clear:edmundintokyo said:
I'm not sure they'd even need to do that. More likely the UK could just announce that they were withdrawing the notification and that would be that. The treaty doesn't say you can withdraw a notification but it also doesn't say you can't, and even if there was a possible legal case to get the ECJ to stipulate no-takesies-backsies, none of the member states would be interested in making enemies by bringing it.rcs1000 said:If the UK government fell during the two year negotiation period, and was replaced by a pro-EU one, then I think the EU would happily 'rescind' our exit. This would be achieved by agreeing an unlimited extension of the negotiating period, and then adjusting the treaties as necessary.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
I don't see a get-out clause in Section 3. A50 means out, unless the other states unanimously extent the 'exit' period indefinitely (or to some distant point).
As for the other states not bringing a case, probably they wouldn't but what about any EU legislation that was passed only with British votes? Some person or company might easily bring a case, arguing that the laws weren't properly passed because British votes were illegitimate. Sooner or later the ECJ would get involved.0 -
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.MarqueeMark said:
And the moment we trigger A50, then the political effect is that Remainers will have to go the much further distance of becoming Rejoiners. With the Euro and looking like pussies and all that baggage. The rest of the EU will be able to flush our heads down the bogs on a daily basis. It will quieten down the great bulk of those wanting not to leave, but equally not wanting to pay the politically unacceptable price of rejoining.david_herdson said:
The the referendum was advisory might be a legal fact; it's not a political one.logical_song said:
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.david_herdson said:
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The government is enacting Brexit and that is fine, it's what people voted for (just). However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.
And once A50 is signed then the journey cannot be changed in substance. The terms of exit might be up for grabs (but not that much - I have a TotalPolitics article in the pipeline on this point), but the fact of Brexit cannot meaningfully be changed. This isn't simply a political point but a legal one: the European Treaties lay out the process and that can't be set aside.
Sod it, Prime Minister, let's just trigger Article 50.0 -
Top of the Mail website:MaxPB said:
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.taffys said:
Shares down 5% today.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835034/Major-brands-axed-Tesco-shelves-row-supplier-Unilever-demanded-10-cent-price-rise-falling-pound.html#ixzz4MxwHNp000 -
The Lib Dems do not support the Salisbury Convention.FrankBooth said:
A 'convention' isn't really worth the paper it's written on.MikeSmithson said:
If TMay gets her way on this, and I think she will, then that will set the convention.david_herdson said:
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.
0 -
Yep, on the face of it she has an uphill task. But as many have noted on here, there are some things more important than money and living standards. This is one hell of an opportunity for Scotland to define itself as being the very opposite of England and to extricate itself from something that many Scots now feel they are no real part of. It would be a shame to see the UK go, but we English have removed the Scots from the EU against their will. It's understandable that Scots may want to pass a judgement on that.CarlottaVance said:
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland.....SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
0 -
Is that true? You're not using the boundary review example are you?TCPoliticalBetting said:
The Lib Dems do not support the Salisbury Convention.FrankBooth said:
A 'convention' isn't really worth the paper it's written on.MikeSmithson said:
If TMay gets her way on this, and I think she will, then that will set the convention.david_herdson said:
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
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: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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.0 -
He's CEO of Tesco's at only 27! WowTCPoliticalBetting said:
A visit from HMRC would seem the right move. They should start with a chat with Dave Lewis at Tesco to see what insights a 27 year old ex Unilever employee could provide.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/0 -
Exactly.edmundintokyo said:
I think it's a bit mad to assume, hypothetically, that the British voters want to stay, the British government wants to stay, the governments of the EU want the British to stay, but something has been legally set in motion that cannot be changed. If everyone's cool with it they'll work something out.david_herdson said:
The the referendum was advisory might be a legal fact; it's not a political one.logical_song said:
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.david_herdson said:
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The government is enacting Brexit and that is fine, it's what people voted for (just). However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.
And once A50 is signed then the journey cannot be changed in substance. The terms of exit might be up for grabs (but not that much - I have a TotalPolitics article in the pipeline on this point), but the fact of Brexit cannot meaningfully be changed. This isn't simply a political point but a legal one: the European Treaties lay out the process and that can't be set aside.
The hurdle to this scenario is that British voters were never that into the EU in the first place, and show no signs of changing their minds.0 -
For practical purposes, yes, I think you're right. It'd still be helpful for the convention to be acknowledged though, as the Salisbury one is, rather than drifting in out of habit.MikeSmithson said:
If TMay gets her way on this, and I think she will, then that will set the convention.david_herdson said:
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.rcs1000 said:
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.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.0 -
''That's what happens when companies try and play politics. ''
See those bodies hanging from lamp posts in Soho?
That's Unilever's PR representatives, that is.0 -
You are miles away from where the centre of Scottish opinion lies on this.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, on the face of it she has an uphill task. But as many have noted on here, there are some things more important than money and living standards. This is one hell of an opportunity for Scotland to define itself as being the very opposite of England and to extricate itself from something that many Scots now feel they are no real part of. It would be a shame to see the UK go, but we English have removed the Scots from the EU against their will. It's understandable that Scots may want to pass a judgement on that.CarlottaVance said:
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland.....SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
0 -
The difference is that there is significantly more latent admiration and positive sentiment for the Union than there ever was for the EU. The independence side would be fighting 300 years of history in addition to the economics, I'm not sure that will be possible. Not enough to swing 6% of No voters.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, on the face of it she has an uphill task. But as many have noted on here, there are some things more important than money and living standards. This is one hell of an opportunity for Scotland to define itself as being the very opposite of England and to extricate itself from something that many Scots now feel they are no real part of. It would be a shame to see the UK go, but we English have removed the Scots from the EU against their will. It's understandable that Scots may want to pass a judgement on that.CarlottaVance said:
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland.....SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
0 -
Its what the treaty says. Once A50 is invoked we are out in 2 years, the only argument then happens about whether we agree on terms or not.logical_song said:
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.david_herdson said:
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The government is enacting Brexit and that is fine, it's what people voted for (just). However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.
Saying a referendum is close is like saying you can be a bit pregnant.0 -
The problem is that the treaty itself gives no provision for the letter of notice to be withdrawn once the process is triggered. You would have to leave and rejoin under the article 49 process. That was part of the reason for Art 50 - golden handcuffs. The old process for leaving had no such issues.IanB2 said:
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.MarqueeMark said:
And the moment we trigger A50, then the political effect is that Remainers will have to go the much further distance of becoming Rejoiners. With the Euro and looking like pussies and all that baggage. The rest of the EU will be able to flush our heads down the bogs on a daily basis. It will quieten down the great bulk of those wanting not to leave, but equally not wanting to pay the politically unacceptable price of rejoining.david_herdson said:
The the referendum was advisory might be a legal fact; it's not a political one.logical_song said:
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.david_herdson said:
In what way would it end Brexit?Jason said:'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market ....r own seats to end Brexit.
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The government is enacting Brexit and that is fine, it's what people voted for (just). However to say that we are on a journey that cannot be changed regardless of events is ridiculous.
And once A50 is signed then the journey cannot be changed in substance. The terms of exit might be up for grabs (but not that much - I have a TotalPolitics article in the pipeline on this point), but the fact of Brexit cannot meaningfully be changed. This isn't simply a political point but a legal one: the European Treaties lay out the process and that can't be set aside.
Sod it, Prime Minister, let's just trigger Article 50.0 -
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have RemainSouthamObserver said:
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.Moses_ said:
Sorry no.SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.0 -
Yes that is one of those inconvenient truths. So why are you upset about tariffs on 15% of your trade but are ok about gaining tariffs on 60% Mrs Sturgeon? Sadly as a supporter of JockIndieLand I do not see this as a winnable position.CarlottaVance said:
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland.....SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
0 -
There are rumours circulating, as yet unconfirmed, that Donald's much hyped black vote outreach is having some effect with news that Bill Cosby is about to endorse Trump ....0
-
No, I realise that most Scots are currently opposed to independence and, indeed, to a further referendum. But there is not going to be one for five years. That's plenty of time to create the necessary animosity - especially if there is a general economic downturn in the meantime.TGOHF said:
You are miles away from where the centre of Scottish opinion lies on this.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, on the face of it she has an uphill task. But as many have noted on here, there are some things more important than money and living standards. This is one hell of an opportunity for Scotland to define itself as being the very opposite of England and to extricate itself from something that many Scots now feel they are no real part of. It would be a shame to see the UK go, but we English have removed the Scots from the EU against their will. It's understandable that Scots may want to pass a judgement on that.CarlottaVance said:
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland.....SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
0 -
King Bhumibol has died:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37643326#"
First Asian financial crisis started in Thailand......0 -
"soap powder is soap powder, people will just get a non Unilever product"CarlottaVance said:
Top of the Mail website:MaxPB said:
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.taffys said:
Shares down 5% today.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835034/Major-brands-axed-Tesco-shelves-row-supplier-Unilever-demanded-10-cent-price-rise-falling-pound.html#ixzz4MxwHNp00
Well quite..0 -
SNP's Nicola Sturgeon announces new independence referendum bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-376343380 -
RIP. HM assumes the top spot.CarlottaVance said:King Bhumibol has died:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37643326#"
First Asian financial crisis started in Thailand......0 -
TESCO - the consumers' champion.CarlottaVance said:
Top of the Mail website:MaxPB said:
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.taffys said:
Shares down 5% today.Richard_Tyndall said:I wonder if Unilever might be starting to regret allowing their finances to come under the spotlight.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/13/unilever-books-profits-outside-eu-in-switzerland/
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835034/Major-brands-axed-Tesco-shelves-row-supplier-Unilever-demanded-10-cent-price-rise-falling-pound.html#ixzz4MxwHNp00
TESCO shares down 2.1%
Unilever shares down 3.3%.
Mutually destructive.
0 -
Its nonsense anyway. Parliament legislates, the Executive enacts in accordance with the legislation and the powers granted therein.AnneJGP said:The only meaningful way I can see would be for the EU negotiators to come & do the negotiating with the MPs as a body in the Commons. A recipe for a right old dog's breakfast of a result. Hardest Brexit of all, would be my guess.
Can anyone name another treaty in which parliament has been involved to any extent ? When parliament debated Lisbon was the a line by line discussion, or was the vote in effect "take it or leave it". Why is this one any different ?
0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegationsJackW said:There are rumours circulating, as yet unconfirmed, that Donald's much hyped black vote outreach is having some effect with news that Bill Cosby is about to endorse Trump ....
0 -
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.Moses_ said:
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have RemainSouthamObserver said:
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.Moses_ said:
Sorry no.SouthamObserver said:To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.0
