politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The legacy from the coalition that ties Theresa May’s hands on
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The legacy from the coalition that ties Theresa May’s hands on an early general election
Back in May 2011 whwn Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were negotiating the Coalition deal one of the key yellow objectives was the fixed Term Parliament Act.
Comments
-
-
Second ..... aargh!0
-
I'd be interested in the view of a constitutional lawyer as to whether the mere repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act would restore the Royal Prerogative in the area. The conventional view is that the Royal Prerogative is a residue. If it has already been displaced in a particular respect, does it re-emerge if the displacement is removed? The answer isn't immediately clear to me but it's not my specialism.0
-
FPT @SeanT given the febrile state of Britain's body politic I would not let it infect the rest of the EU, so no I would not seek to reverse the referendum decision by the front door or the back. The fever has to be sweated out.0
-
The important thing is whether the treaty is ratified, not whether it is signed. As I keep telling you, it's all explained quite clearly in that document I linked to:Richard_Tyndall said:
Ignoring the point that those treaties will already have been signed and that Parliament had no power to change that.Chris said:
Treaties that involve changes to the law, including EU treaties, require primary legislation. Please follow the link I provided. It's all explained there:Richard_Tyndall said:
No it has not. You clearly do not understand the concept of the Royal Prerogative. Until the law was explicitly changed in 2010, it allowed the executive to make treaties with no reference to Parliament.Chris said:Really, I think this stuff about the government acting illegally by agreeing to EU treaties before parliament has passed the necessary legislation is complete tripe.
Here's a "FactSheet" from 2010 published by the House of Commons Information Office:
"All EU treaties require legislation for their implementation in the UK and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Rome is given effect in the UK by the European
Communities Act 1972. Any amendment has to be given effect by UK legislation, thus the
enlargements of the EC to include Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden required amending Acts of Parliament in Britain."
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
There's nothing new about the court's view. Obviously, the government's agreement to EU treaties has been conditional on Parliament passing the necessary legislation, in just the same way as for a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
0 -
-
Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.0 -
Meanwhile, as far as I'm aware, Hillary is restricting herself to one conference per day over the last 72 hours ...... all of which begs the question: Does she think she has it in the bag or .... is she totally and utterly clapped out? I suspect there's a good part of the latter involved in the answer.619 said:0 -
People should remember states don't stay blue or red forever
In the 2032 election I'd guess Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota to be definitely republican, with Arizona, Texas Democrat.0 -
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.0 -
Looks like we're going to need the smelling salts out on the 8th !weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.0 -
The referendum voted out - I do not see the problem of being automaticallu out unless you are a remainer intent on subverting the referendum vote to leaveChris said:
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.0 -
-
You won. Get over it.SeanT said:Does anyone really think that the ultra-Remainers, from Meeks and williamglen on here, to Gina Miller, to Blair and Farron and Ken Clarke and the entire Guardian and BBC, would refuse a chance to reverse the referendum, if they were offered some spurious, quasi-legal justification?
They'd seize the opportunity with relish. They'd explain away their actions, to themselves and others, with specious guff about unwritten constitutions and advisory votes. And Brexit would be abandoned.
This is what thousands, maybe millions of Brits WANT to happen. Stop Brexit by fair means or foul. And they are entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't make what they are desiring to do morally right. It's not. It's wrong.0 -
It wouldn't be a restoration of the Royal prerogative - as you correctly say, that can't be done. But you could pass legislation with basically the same effect (it just wouldn't technically be called Royal prerogative).AlastairMeeks said:I'd be interested in the view of a constitutional lawyer as to whether the mere repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act would restore the Royal Prerogative in the area. The conventional view is that the Royal Prerogative is a residue. If it has already been displaced in a particular respect, does it re-emerge if the displacement is removed? The answer isn't immediately clear to me but it's not my specialism.
0 -
In none of those cases did the Mail imply that the judges were biased. Far from making your point, they undermine it.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/7948965852096102400 -
Love the editorial in the Speccie - like a stern uncle lecturing recalcitrant children:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/brexit-means-defending-laws-courts-brexiteers-accept/0 -
Trump's Michigan rally is in Macomb county.
That is deepest Detroit !
I'd certainly recommend anyone betting to put £2 on Mike Pence with Betfair to cover him heading into one of the most Democrat counties in the whole of the USA.0 -
Yes indeed - some of those latest polls look absolutely shocking for Hillary.Pulpstar said:
Looks like we're going to need the smelling salts out on the 8th !weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
I fancy OGH was somewhat premature in presenting such positive vibes for her in the previous thread - this could still go horribly wrong for Camp Clinton.0 -
Chris said:
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.
That isn't necessarily true.
A50 only applies according to our constitutional arrangements - which in this case require approval of the final deal before parliament.
Therefore if we apply for A50, and the EU gives us a bad deal, and it is rejected by parliament. Then the original A50 notice can be deemed invalid, since it was not constitutional. The EU may not like this, but those are the treaty terms.
In practice another A50 would then have to be issued and an amended deal struck.
0 -
It seems unlikely that the House of Lords would agree to repeal of FTA for reasons of party advantage - particularly as there was no such proposal in the 2015 Tory manifesto.0
-
Shame it had to happen that way, but SPOTY nailed on?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/7949095918847467520 -
The media has been very focussed on hispanic turnout, but white turnout is up alot and black down.peter_from_putney said:
Yes indeed - some of those latest polls look absolutely shocking for Hillary.Pulpstar said:
Looks like we're going to need the smelling salts out on the 8th !weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
I fancy OGH was somewhat premature in presenting such positive vibes for her in the previous thread - this could still go horribly wrong for Camp Clinton.
Also stuff going on under the surface perhaps in the Great Lakes that has been almost totally missed with the focus on North Carolina and Florida.0 -
QTWTAI...?Pulpstar said:0 -
I suspect it is you who are not reading comments. The point is that for every one of those EU treaties the Parliament was not being presented with a choice. It was being told to rubber stamp a decision that had already been made. If it had chosen not to pass the legislation it would have made no difference whatsoever as to whether we were bound by the Treaty. We would be as we would already have signed. All that would have happened is that any laws that did not comply would have been struck down by the courts and we would have been fined by the EU . The treaties would still have stood as they were signed by the executive under the Royal Prerogative.Chris said:
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.
I suggest you learn something about how the EU treaties and the UK constitution works.0 -
Well, the tone is one thing (not alone in that) but the principle is undeniable.Stark_Dawning said:Love the editorial in the Speccie - like a stern uncle lecturing recalcitrant children:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/brexit-means-defending-laws-courts-brexiteers-accept/
Even if it turns out to be the case that we cannot leave the EU without breaking the law, then the law has to be observed.
Until such time as Parliament sees fit to change it.
If Parliament (either House) then refuses to change the law so that we can leave the EU, well, the electors know where they stand, don't they?0 -
Not so. Ratification until 2010 did not require Parliamentary approval. It is only since 2010 that it has been necessary to get Parliamentary approval to ratify a treaty.Chris said:
The important thing is whether the treaty is ratified, not whether it is signed. As I keep telling you, it's all explained quite clearly in that document I linked to:Richard_Tyndall said:
Ignoring the point that those treaties will already have been signed and that Parliament had no power to change that.Chris said:
Treaties that involve changes to the law, including EU treaties, require primary legislation. Please follow the link I provided. It's all explained there:Richard_Tyndall said:
No it has not. You clearly do not understand the concept of the Royal Prerogative. Until the law was explicitly changed in 2010, it allowed the executive to make treaties with no reference to Parliament.Chris said:Really, I think this stuff about the government acting illegally by agreeing to EU treaties before parliament has passed the necessary legislation is complete tripe.
Here's a "FactSheet" from 2010 published by the House of Commons Information Office:
"All EU treaties require legislation for their implementation in the UK and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Rome is given effect in the UK by the European
Communities Act 1972. Any amendment has to be given effect by UK legislation, thus the
enlargements of the EC to include Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden required amending Acts of Parliament in Britain."
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
There's nothing new about the court's view. Obviously, the government's agreement to EU treaties has been conditional on Parliament passing the necessary legislation, in just the same way as for a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf0 -
Both parties in the High Court agreed that Article 50 is effectively irreversible.MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.
That isn't necessarily true.
A50 only applies according to our constitutional arrangements - which in this case require approval of the final deal before parliament.
Therefore if we apply for A50, and the EU gives us a bad deal, and it is rejected by parliament. Then the original A50 notice can be deemed invalid, since it was not constitutional. The EU may not like this, but those are the treaty terms.
In practice another A50 would then have to be issued and an amended deal struck.
Try again.0 -
Introduce a one line bill giving the PM the right to invoke A50. Make the vote on it a confidence motion.
Both problems solved ?0 -
Well, if you want a Hard Brexit obviously you personally would be happy with that. It's just that earlier on you were saying you felt it was important that the little people should decide. If you really believe that, you ought to figure out a way of giving them a real decision about Hard versus Soft. But if it was just rhetorical, fair enough.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The referendum voted out - I do not see the problem of being automaticallu out unless you are a remainer intent on subverting the referendum vote to leaveChris said:
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
It seems the metropolitian elite and vested interests are trying to close down the press once again. Critiscm of the Judiciary it seems is not allowed.
This is getting out of hand on both sides but this just plays into the narrative of the out of touch elite and highlights why the Brexit vote happened
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.0 -
Only if you think that the referendum, unlike a GE, should have a result that lasts forever.SeanT said:Does anyone really think that the ultra-Remainers, from Meeks and williamglen on here, to Gina Miller, to Blair and Farron and Ken Clarke and the entire Guardian and BBC, would refuse a chance to reverse the referendum, if they were offered some spurious, quasi-legal justification?
They'd seize the opportunity with relish. They'd explain away their actions, to themselves and others, with specious guff about unwritten constitutions and advisory votes. And Brexit would be abandoned.
This is what thousands, maybe millions of Brits WANT to happen. Stop Brexit by fair means or foul. And they are entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't make what they are desiring to do morally right. It's not. It's wrong.
0 -
I don't see the sense in your argument. A50 is a term under European, not U.K., law, that specifies that (unless unanimously extended) the U.K. ceases to be a member of the EU two years after the notification is submitted. If there is no deal at that point then we leave with no deal. What happens or does not happen in the U.K. Parliament during the two years is not relevant to that essential point.MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.
That isn't necessarily true.
A50 only applies according to our constitutional arrangements - which in this case require approval of the final deal before parliament.
Therefore if we apply for A50, and the EU gives us a bad deal, and it is rejected by parliament. Then the original A50 notice can be deemed invalid, since it was not constitutional. The EU may not like this, but those are the treaty terms.
In practice another A50 would then have to be issued and an amended deal struck.0 -
I consider that our political life has gained considerably from knowing when a GE is to be held. Before the FTP Act every little thing was ground enough for speculation on whether the PM would go to the country or demands that the PM must.justin124 said:It seems unlikely that the House of Lords would agree to repeal of FTA for reasons of party advantage - particularly as there was no such proposal in the 2015 Tory manifesto.
Maybe the checks & balances need changing - perhaps acknowledging different criteria for majority/coalition governments - but repeal? Surely not.0 -
We're missing something important. The government is truly desperate to win the Article 50 case on appeal. That's the only possible reading of the desultory statement put out by Liz Truss (it's a blunder on that front too, mind). But why?
It must be about what the government would need to put into an Article 50 bill. Perhaps a one line enabling bill won't serve the purpose.
We need to understand just what the government is so desperate about.0 -
"The alternative route would be the bizarre spectacle of May’s government initiating a vote of no confidence in it itself. Even then the PM could not necessarily count on the support of all CON MPs to back it. As we saw with yesterday’s latest CON MP resignation there’s disquiet amongst some of the blue team about the way TMay keeps things to herself particularly on BREXIT."
Presumably the situation can be forced: if the Government comes to the conclusion that it cannot continue without consulting the people in a General Election, then it doesn't need Parliament to vote it out. It can just resign.
If Tory holdouts then want to prevent an election, they would have to vote in a Labour-led Government, empowering the Far Left to run the country and putting their own party into Opposition in the process. And bear in mind that, given Brexit is the issue that will have brought matters to a head, there would have to be enough Conservative rebels ready to commit career suicide for the sake of the EU not only to overcome their own colleagues, but also the votes of the NI Unionists, Carswell and an unspecified number of Labour Brexit ultras as well. It's unthinkable.
If May wants an early election she will get one, even if she has to wait a fortnight for the ludicrous pantomime of Corbyn being given the chance to seek a majority to play itself out. The FPTA cannot be used to veto a dissolution under these circumstances.
(Repeal of the FPTA is, of course, an alternative, but there is no guarantee that Tory rebels might not oppose that as well, and it would almost certainly be held up for a year after a Lords' veto, necessitating the use of the Parliament Act.)0 -
No, but like the last one it must be acted upon before the question is asked again and that action reversed, or you face the prospect of any referendum being meaningless unless it gets the 'right result' - we'll keep asking you until you agree.Innocent_Abroad said:
Only if you think that the referendum, unlike a GE, should have a result that lasts forever.SeanT said:Does anyone really think that the ultra-Remainers, from Meeks and williamglen on here, to Gina Miller, to Blair and Farron and Ken Clarke and the entire Guardian and BBC, would refuse a chance to reverse the referendum, if they were offered some spurious, quasi-legal justification?
They'd seize the opportunity with relish. They'd explain away their actions, to themselves and others, with specious guff about unwritten constitutions and advisory votes. And Brexit would be abandoned.
This is what thousands, maybe millions of Brits WANT to happen. Stop Brexit by fair means or foul. And they are entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't make what they are desiring to do morally right. It's not. It's wrong.0 -
That's suburban Detroit, very white suburban Detroit.Pulpstar said:Trump's Michigan rally is in Macomb county.
That is deepest Detroit !
I'd certainly recommend anyone betting to put £2 on Mike Pence with Betfair to cover him heading into one of the most Democrat counties in the whole of the USA.0 -
Agreed. There us no scope for a new Article 50 as that is governed by EU not UK law.IanB2 said:
I don't see the sense in your argument. A50 is a term under European, not U.K., law, that specifies that (unless unanimously extended) the U.K. ceases to be a member of the EU two years after the notification is submitted. If there is no deal at that point then we leave with no deal. What happens or does not happen in the U.K. Parliament during the two years is not relevant to that essential point.MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.
That isn't necessarily true.
A50 only applies according to our constitutional arrangements - which in this case require approval of the final deal before parliament.
Therefore if we apply for A50, and the EU gives us a bad deal, and it is rejected by parliament. Then the original A50 notice can be deemed invalid, since it was not constitutional. The EU may not like this, but those are the treaty terms.
In practice another A50 would then have to be issued and an amended deal struck.0 -
At least it looks as if we'll have an interesting Election night/ morning. Last couple of times it was a slam dunk. (Of course it still may be if Trump can't make an early breakthrough.)0
-
@SeanT bollocks. It's a full frontal attack on the impartiality of the judiciary without a scintilla of evidence other than you don't like the decision.SeanT said:
They're attacking the judges for being liberal-left elitists. Which is what they did last week.AlastairMeeks said:
In none of those cases did the Mail imply that the judges were biased. Far from making your point, they undermine it.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/794896585209610240
Moreover, there is a great historical irony here. Many decades ago, from the 19th century onwards, the Left would attack British judges as being "reactionary Tories", "tools of the Establishment", "enemies of the working classes".
And the Left, in many cases, was correct. The judges, given their background, often came down, unfairly, in favour of property, capital, London, the upper middle classes and the Tory interest. The judges surely did their best to be balanced, but their psychosocial DNA made it impossible.
Now we have a legal class and a judiciary - of which you are an example - which is overwhelmingly haute bourgeois, liberal, metropolitan and, crucially, europhile. Many of them have personal interests in European law firms, have worked within European law for decades, and so forth.
It would take inhuman skill for judges to avoid internal bias towards EU membership in these circumstances, no matter how hard they strive to be neutral. I do not believe our judges are inhuman. Our newspapers therefore have every right to question their neutrality, in this case, just as the Left was justified with its criticisms in the 19th century.
It's part of our democracy. Checks and balances.0 -
I don't think the government is going to put it to parliament, at least not THIS one.AlastairMeeks said:We're missing something important. The government is truly desperate to win the Article 50 case on appeal. That's the only possible reading of the desultory statement put out by Liz Truss (it's a blunder on that front too, mind). But why?
It must be about what the government would need to put into an Article 50 bill. Perhaps a one line enabling bill won't serve the purpose.
We need to understand just what the government is so desperate about.
0 -
I'll just repeat one more time that treaties which involve changes in UK law, including EU treaties, have always required primary legislation, and I'll refer you yet again to the document that explains it all quite clearly (which, ironically enough, is an archived copy predating the change in the law you keep referring to):Richard_Tyndall said:
Not so. Ratification until 2010 did not require Parliamentary approval. It is only since 2010 that it has been necessary to get Parliamentary approval to ratify a treaty.Chris said:
The important thing is whether the treaty is ratified, not whether it is signed. As I keep telling you, it's all explained quite clearly in that document I linked to:Richard_Tyndall said:
Ignoring the point that those treaties will already have been signed and that Parliament had no power to change that.Chris said:
Treaties that involve changes to the law, including EU treaties, require primary legislation. Please follow the link I provided. It's all explained there:Richard_Tyndall said:
No it has not. You clearly do not understand the concept of the Royal Prerogative. Until the law was explicitly changed in 2010, it allowed the executive to make treaties with no reference to Parliament.Chris said:Really, I think this stuff about the government acting illegally by agreeing to EU treaties before parliament has passed the necessary legislation is complete tripe.
Here's a "FactSheet" from 2010 published by the House of Commons Information Office:
"All EU treaties require legislation for their implementation in the UK and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Rome is given effect in the UK by the European
Communities Act 1972. Any amendment has to be given effect by UK legislation, thus the
enlargements of the EC to include Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden required amending Acts of Parliament in Britain."
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
There's nothing new about the court's view. Obviously, the government's agreement to EU treaties has been conditional on Parliament passing the necessary legislation, in just the same way as for a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
That is, in effect, the whole point of the judgment. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a dialogue with the deaf.0 -
IanB2 said:
I don't see the sense in your argument. A50 is a term under European, not U.K., law, that specifies that (unless unanimously extended) the U.K. ceases to be a member of the EU two years after the notification is submitted. If there is no deal at that point then we leave with no deal. What happens or does not happen in the U.K. Parliament during the two years is not relevant to that essential point.MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Sorry, but I can't help wondering whether you're actually reading people's comments.Richard_Tyndall said:
That's is what has happened with every other Treaty that has given power and rights away to the EU.Chris said:
What, when the negotiations have finished?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
And when is that going to be?MarkHopkins said:Chris said:
Tell me - what is the mechanism going to be for little people (or any people) to be heard on the issue of whether we have Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - I want a Country where the little people are heard.rottenborough said:
It doesn't matter whether they are out of touch or not. They were asked to rule on the constitution and law and that is their job. If we want a country where the number of pitchforks you can muster decides what the law is, then I'm off.Big_G_NorthWales said:Bar Council and others demanding Liz Truss makes a public statement condemning the media reporting on the A50 decision.
Are you perhaps advocating a second referendum?
That's what the later parliamentary debate will be about.
After the negotiations with the EU. When we have a better idea of the options available.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.
That isn't necessarily true.
A50 only applies according to our constitutional arrangements - which in this case require approval of the final deal before parliament.
Therefore if we apply for A50, and the EU gives us a bad deal, and it is rejected by parliament. Then the original A50 notice can be deemed invalid, since it was not constitutional. The EU may not like this, but those are the treaty terms.
In practice another A50 would then have to be issued and an amended deal struck.
Yes you are correct, having re-read A50.
Hard Brexit it is then!
0 -
I understand you're annoyed with the decision. You haven't produced a shred of evidence for your belief.SeanT said:
And I think the attack is justified, because I am not convinced the judiciary is impartial on the subject of Brexit. What part of that don't you understand?AlastairMeeks said:
@SeanT bollocks. It's a full frontal attack on the impartiality of the judiciary without a scintilla of evidence other than you don't like the decision.SeanT said:
They're attacking the judges for being liberal-left elitists. Which is what they did last week.AlastairMeeks said:
In none of those cases did the Mail imply that the judges were biased. Far from making your point, they undermine it.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/794896585209610240
Moreover, there is a great historical irony here. Many decades ago, from the 19th century onwards, the Left would attack British judges as being "reactionary Tories", "tools of the Establishment", "enemies of the working classes".
And the Left, in many cases, was correct. The judges, given their background, often came down, unfairly, in favour of property, capital, London, the upper middle classes and the Tory interest. The judges surely did their best to be balanced, but their psychosocial DNA made it impossible.
Now we have a legal class and a judiciary - of which you are an example - which is overwhelmingly haute bourgeois, liberal, metropolitan and, crucially, europhile. Many of them have personal interests in European law firms, have worked within European law for decades, and so forth.
It would take inhuman skill for judges to avoid internal bias towards EU membership in these circumstances, no matter how hard they strive to be neutral. I do not believe our judges are inhuman. Our newspapers therefore have every right to question their neutrality, in this case, just as the Left was justified with its criticisms in the 19th century.
It's part of our democracy. Checks and balances.0 -
Perhaps I'm focussing too much on party politics, rather than the mechanics of Brexit, but I think they just want to avoid an election so that they can deal with Brexit and Corbyn in (from their point of view) the right order.AlastairMeeks said:We're missing something important. The government is truly desperate to win the Article 50 case on appeal. That's the only possible reading of the desultory statement put out by Liz Truss (it's a blunder on that front too, mind). But why?
It must be about what the government would need to put into an Article 50 bill. Perhaps a one line enabling bill won't serve the purpose.
We need to understand just what the government is so desperate about.
If there's an election first then the Tories might very well win by a landslide, but it seems unlikely that Labour will drop much below 180 seats even in the worst case scenario, and there's then the risk that it'll come to its senses and install a credible leader. It will be easier for the Government to cope with the fallout from any difficulties with Brexit (negotiation or outcome) if it doesn't have a reinvigorated Labour Party breathing down its neck.
Corbyn, on the other hand, is not effective and will never be electable. He's the Tories insurance policy against a difficult Brexit.0 -
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.0 -
That is arguably true or referenda (I say "arguably" because the relevant Government action is unclear, too) but cannot be true of a GE that returns a majority of Remainer MPs. Not unless we are turning away from Parliamentary democracy - which we may be, of course.TonyE said:
No, but like the last one it must be acted upon before the question is asked again and that action reversed, or you face the prospect of any referendum being meaningless unless it gets the 'right result' - we'll keep asking you until you agree.Innocent_Abroad said:
Only if you think that the referendum, unlike a GE, should have a result that lasts forever.SeanT said:Does anyone really think that the ultra-Remainers, from Meeks and williamglen on here, to Gina Miller, to Blair and Farron and Ken Clarke and the entire Guardian and BBC, would refuse a chance to reverse the referendum, if they were offered some spurious, quasi-legal justification?
They'd seize the opportunity with relish. They'd explain away their actions, to themselves and others, with specious guff about unwritten constitutions and advisory votes. And Brexit would be abandoned.
This is what thousands, maybe millions of Brits WANT to happen. Stop Brexit by fair means or foul. And they are entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't make what they are desiring to do morally right. It's not. It's wrong.
0 -
Innocent_Abroad said:
That is arguably true of referenda (I say "arguably" because the relevant Government action is unclear, too) but cannot be true of a GE that returns a majority of Remainer MPs. Not unless we are turning away from Parliamentary democracy - which we may be, of course.TonyE said:
No, but like the last one it must be acted upon before the question is asked again and that action reversed, or you face the prospect of any referendum being meaningless unless it gets the 'right result' - we'll keep asking you until you agree.Innocent_Abroad said:
Only if you think that the referendum, unlike a GE, should have a result that lasts forever.SeanT said:Does anyone really think that the ultra-Remainers, from Meeks and williamglen on here, to Gina Miller, to Blair and Farron and Ken Clarke and the entire Guardian and BBC, would refuse a chance to reverse the referendum, if they were offered some spurious, quasi-legal justification?
They'd seize the opportunity with relish. They'd explain away their actions, to themselves and others, with specious guff about unwritten constitutions and advisory votes. And Brexit would be abandoned.
This is what thousands, maybe millions of Brits WANT to happen. Stop Brexit by fair means or foul. And they are entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't make what they are desiring to do morally right. It's not. It's wrong.0 -
That 'death march' by Dole helped cut Clinton's poll lead and turned a potentially humiliating defeat into a respectable one. In 2000 Gore's final campaign marathon helped him win the popular vote619 said:0 -
I like Conway's version of the Hillary chant - 'Prop her up!'HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.0 -
I suspect the 'Leavers' railing against the judicial ruling secretly want Brexit to fail. It's a great get-out isn't it - you can have all the moral indignation of castigating Remainers and the 'liberal elite' with none of the Brexit misery. Personally I really want Brexit to go ahead. I want to deprive them of that satisfaction.AlastairMeeks said:
I understand you're annoyed with the decision. You haven't produced a shred of evidence for your belief.SeanT said:
And I think the attack is justified, because I am not convinced the judiciary is impartial on the subject of Brexit. What part of that don't you understand?AlastairMeeks said:
@SeanT bollocks. It's a full frontal attack on the impartiality of the judiciary without a scintilla of evidence other than you don't like the decision.SeanT said:
They're attacking the judges for being liberal-left elitists. Which is what they did last week.AlastairMeeks said:
In none of those cases did the Mail imply that the judges were biased. Far from making your point, they undermine it.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/794896585209610240
Moreover, there is a great historical irony here. Many decades ago, from the 19th century onwards, the Left would attack British judges as being "reactionary Tories", "tools of the Establishment", "enemies of the working classes".
And the Left, in many cases, was correct. The judges, given their background, often came down, unfairly, in favour of property, capital, London, the upper middle classes and the Tory interest. The judges surely did their best to be balanced, but their psychosocial DNA made it impossible.
Now we have a legal class and a judiciary - of which you are an example - which is overwhelmingly haute bourgeois, liberal, metropolitan and, crucially, europhile. Many of them have personal interests in European law firms, have worked within European law for decades, and so forth.
It would take inhuman skill for judges to avoid internal bias towards EU membership in these circumstances, no matter how hard they strive to be neutral. I do not believe our judges are inhuman. Our newspapers therefore have every right to question their neutrality, in this case, just as the Left was justified with its criticisms in the 19th century.
It's part of our democracy. Checks and balances.0 -
So what?AlastairMeeks said:
@SeanT bollocks. It's a full frontal attack on the impartiality of the judiciary without a scintilla of evidence other than you don't like the decision.SeanT said:
They're attacking the judges for being liberal-left elitists. Which is what they did last week.AlastairMeeks said:
In none of those cases did the Mail imply that the judges were biased. Far from making your point, they undermine it.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/794896585209610240
Moreover, there is a great historical irony here. Many decades ago, from the 19th century onwards, the Left would attack British judges as being "reactionary Tories", "tools of the Establishment", "enemies of the working classes".
And the Left, in many cases, was correct. The judges, given their background, often came down, unfairly, in favour of property, capital, London, the upper middle classes and the Tory interest. The judges surely did their best to be balanced, but their psychosocial DNA made it impossible.
Now we have a legal class and a judiciary - of which you are an example - which is overwhelmingly haute bourgeois, liberal, metropolitan and, crucially, europhile. Many of them have personal interests in European law firms, have worked within European law for decades, and so forth.
It would take inhuman skill for judges to avoid internal bias towards EU membership in these circumstances, no matter how hard they strive to be neutral. I do not believe our judges are inhuman. Our newspapers therefore have every right to question their neutrality, in this case, just as the Left was justified with its criticisms in the 19th century.
It's part of our democracy. Checks and balances.
That's what free speech entitles. Without the right to attack the impartiality of the judiciary (with or without evidence) there is no free speech and no checks or balances on a dictatorial judiciary.0 -
That was always Trump's strategy from day 1....to unashamedly go for the WWC. It got him through the primaries, and as much as some of thought he might tack to the centre, he pursued his aggressive WWC strategy with more gusto.Pulpstar said:
The media has been very focussed on hispanic turnout, but white turnout is up alot and black down.peter_from_putney said:
Yes indeed - some of those latest polls look absolutely shocking for Hillary.Pulpstar said:
Looks like we're going to need the smelling salts out on the 8th !weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
I fancy OGH was somewhat premature in presenting such positive vibes for her in the previous thread - this could still go horribly wrong for Camp Clinton.
Also stuff going on under the surface perhaps in the Great Lakes that has been almost totally missed with the focus on North Carolina and Florida.
I still think it has suited Clinton's narrative to put this on the knife edge in the last week....
It could go any of these ways IMO
An Easy Clinton win
Clinton mops up all Obama's states except Ohio and Iowa and flips North Carolina/ and she even gets Ohio- and brings Georgia into play
A bum squeaker Clinton win
Clinton flips North Carolina/ keeps Florida but loses one or two of of Wisconsin/Michigan and Penn
A clear Trump pathway
Clinton doesn't flip any states/ loses Florida and two or even three of Mich/WI/Penn and maybe NH because the polls have underscored significantly the WWC's likelihood to vote/ and overplayed the minorities
I would not be surprised if any of those scenarios come to fruition on Tuesday. Thank god I'm not spread betting because the potential spread is huuuuuuuuuugggeeeeee....
0 -
There is no doubt which candidate has more energy in these final few dayswilliamglenn said:
I like Conway's version of the Hillary chant - 'Prop her up!'HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.0 -
My ancestors fought and won a bloody civil war against the crown to establish the principle that rights and laws conferred by Parliament can only be revoked by that same Parliament. Leavers should respect this outcome and not be trying to re-open the matter now.0
-
And no bacon.......SeanT said:
Apparently "impartiality of the jury" is now up there with "Islam" as one of these new fangled things which can never be questioned or mocked in any way whatseover, and those that do should be publicly shamed, sent to a mosque/courtroom to pour liquid manure on their heads, and then they will be sent to live on Anglesey in a damp bungalow forever.Philip_Thompson said:
So what?AlastairMeeks said:
@SeanT bollocks. It's a full frontal attack on the impartiality of the judiciary without a scintilla of evidence other than you don't like the decision.SeanT said:
They're attacking the judges for being liberal-left elitists. Which is what they did last week.AlastairMeeks said:
In none of those cases did the Mail imply that the judges were biased. Far from making your point, they undermine it.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/794896585209610240
Moreover, there is a great historical irony here. Many decades ago, from the 19th century onwards, the Left would attack British judges as being "reactionary Tories", "tools of the Establishment", "enemies of the working classes".
And the Left, in many cases, was correct. The judges, given their background, often came down, unfairly, in favour of property, capital, London, the upper middle classes and the Tory interest. The judges surely did their best to be balanced, but their psychosocial DNA made it impossible.
Now we have a legal class and a judiciary - of which you are an example - which is overwhelmingly haute bourgeois, liberal, metropolitan and, crucially, europhile. Many of them have personal interests in European law firms, have worked within European law for decades, and so forth.
It would take inhuman skill for judges to avoid internal bias towards EU membership in these circumstances, no matter how hard they strive to be neutral. I do not believe our judges are inhuman. Our newspapers therefore have every right to question their neutrality, in this case, just as the Left was justified with its criticisms in the 19th century.
It's part of our democracy. Checks and balances.
That's what free speech entitles. Without the right to attack the impartiality of the judiciary (with or without evidence) there is no free speech and no checks or balances on a dictatorial judiciary.0 -
HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....0 -
And all I can say again is that you clearly don't understand what you are quoting . The very document you quote makes it absurdly clear that prior to 2010 Parliament had no formal role in the ratification of treaties and if they voted against the primary legislation it made no difference to the legal status of the treaty and the UK was still bound by it.Chris said:
I'll just repeat one more time that treaties which involve changes in UK law, including EU treaties, have always required primary legislation, and I'll refer you yet again to the document that explains it all quite clearly (which, ironically enough, is an archived copy predating the change in the law you keep referring to):
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
That is, in effect, the whole point of the judgment. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a dialogue with the deaf.
I suspect you are just hoping no one will actually challenge the garbage you are spouting or go and actually look at the documents.0 -
@IanB2
"Leavers should respect this outcome and not be trying to re-open the matter now. "
Havent remainers rather set the precedent that anything you dont like can be re-opened?
You cant accept the stated will of the people with any kind of grace.0 -
In the default case of a Hillary win next week, do we think that global stock markets and the $ will rally once the spectre of a trump presidency recedes, or do we think that the continuing political instability will see markets continue their downward trend?0
-
JackW did say he would not return until Sunday eve!tyson said:HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....0 -
Britain's Andy Murray is World Number One. Now will he win the final or will Scotland's Andy Murray lose it?0
-
If you read the judgement you will see that the issue is not the ratification of treaties per se, but the change in rights and entitlements granted originally by parliament that would inexorably follow two years after the A50 notification is submitted.Richard_Tyndall said:
And all I can say again is that you clearly don't understand what you are quoting . The very document you quote makes it absurdly clear that prior to 2010 Parliament had no formal role in the ratification of treaties and if they voted against the primary legislation it made no difference to the legal status of the treaty and the UK was still bound by it.Chris said:
I'll just repeat one more time that treaties which involve changes in UK law, including EU treaties, have always required primary legislation, and I'll refer you yet again to the document that explains it all quite clearly (which, ironically enough, is an archived copy predating the change in the law you keep referring to):
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
That is, in effect, the whole point of the judgment. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a dialogue with the deaf.
I suspect you are just hoping no one will actually challenge the garbage you are spouting or go and actually look at the documents.0 -
I'll just suggest that anyone who is still confused about the process by which EU treaties have been agreed in the past should contemplate the timetable for the Lisbon Treaty:
13 December 2007 Signed
11 March 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill passed by Commons
18 June 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill passed by Lords
19 June 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill received Royal Assent
16 July 2008 Ratified by UK
1 December 2009 Came into force after ratification by all member states
0 -
Thanks for giving me the heads upjustin124 said:
JackW did say he would not return until Sunday eve!tyson said:HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....0 -
On topic - haven't some constitutional bods said that restoring the prerogative might not be possible?0
-
You live in Italy, the home of conspiracy theories and where they are generally true, I believe? I assume you have heard of dietrologia?tyson said:HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....0 -
I think 4.6 is actually a bit of value now for Trump on Betfair.
I've added £50 to him anyway at this price.0 -
Sporting's latest ECV spreads:
Clinton 301 - 311
Trump 228 - 238
Hmm ..... not quite the way I'm reading things right now, but we'll see.0 -
Interesting direction of travel - to Trump, for the most part. As I've said before, Michigan and Wisconsin to surprise on the night.weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
That said, I have low faith in US polling when it is all within the margin of error0 -
I didn't say that you couldn't say it, though you should note that it might well be libellous. However, making baseless statements of that type marks out the person makingi them as an odious cretin with crackpot tendencies. Serious claims require serious evidence if you are going to be taken seriously.Philip_Thompson said:
So what?AlastairMeeks said:
@SeanT bollocks. It's a full frontal attack on the impartiality of the judiciary without a scintilla of evidence other than you don't like the decision.SeanT said:
They're attacking the judges for being liberal-left elitists. Which is what they did last week.AlastairMeeks said:
In none of those cases did the Mail imply that the judges were biased. Far from making your point, they undermine it.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/794896585209610240
Moreover, there is a great historical irony here. Many decades ago, from the 19th century onwards, the Left would attack British judges as being "reactionary Tories", "tools of the Establishment", "enemies of the working classes".
And the Left, in many cases, was correct. The judges, given their background, often came down, unfairly, in favour of property, capital, London, the upper middle classes and the Tory interest. The judges surely did their best to be balanced, but their psychosocial DNA made it impossible.
Now we have a legal class and a judiciary - of which you are an example - which is overwhelmingly haute bourgeois, liberal, metropolitan and, crucially, europhile. Many of them have personal interests in European law firms, have worked within European law for decades, and so forth.
It would take inhuman skill for judges to avoid internal bias towards EU membership in these circumstances, no matter how hard they strive to be neutral. I do not believe our judges are inhuman. Our newspapers therefore have every right to question their neutrality, in this case, just as the Left was justified with its criticisms in the 19th century.
It's part of our democracy. Checks and balances.
That's what free speech entitles. Without the right to attack the impartiality of the judiciary (with or without evidence) there is no free speech and no checks or balances on a dictatorial judiciary.0 -
Buying at 238 looks good to me, but as a rule I don't get on the spreads!peter_from_putney said:Sporting's latest ECV spreads:
Clinton 301 - 311
Trump 228 - 238
Hmm ..... not quite the way I'm reading things right now, but we'll see.0 -
That Liz Truss statement couldnt be much weaker. HMG sending a message I'd say.0
-
He's not world number one until Monday when they feed through the points.Philip_Thompson said:Britain's Andy Murray is World Number One. Now will he win the final or will Scotland's Andy Murray lose it?
Well done Murray....a massive achievement for British sport. I think he's likely to stay there until the tour finals 2017, when a certain Roger Federer re-claims it at the timely age of 36...
0 -
If a treaty required primary legislation and parliament refused to pass that legislation, then the treaty wouldn't be ratified and it would never come into force.Richard_Tyndall said:
And all I can say again is that you clearly don't understand what you are quoting . The very document you quote makes it absurdly clear that prior to 2010 Parliament had no formal role in the ratification of treaties and if they voted against the primary legislation it made no difference to the legal status of the treaty and the UK was still bound by it.Chris said:
I'll just repeat one more time that treaties which involve changes in UK law, including EU treaties, have always required primary legislation, and I'll refer you yet again to the document that explains it all quite clearly (which, ironically enough, is an archived copy predating the change in the law you keep referring to):
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
That is, in effect, the whole point of the judgment. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a dialogue with the deaf.
This really shouldn't be hard for you to understand.0 -
The message they're sending is that they're panicking.Alanbrooke said:That Liz Truss statement couldnt be much weaker. HMG sending a message I'd say.
0 -
If Trump wins Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and New Hampshire he can afford to lose Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico, maybe even North Carolina too. Florida would be more difficult but if he won Nevada or held on in North Carolina he could afford to lose there. JackW, like Hillary herself it seems given her relatively light schedule, is perhaps being a little too over confident in these final days. If the white working class turns out for Trump as it did for Brexit we are in for a long nighttyson said:HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....0 -
-
Shouldn't a 'message' generally contain some new information?AlastairMeeks said:
The message they're sending is that they're panicking.Alanbrooke said:That Liz Truss statement couldnt be much weaker. HMG sending a message I'd say.
0 -
I'd suggest that if he's winning in Wisconsin, he's already won. Should be focusing on the tighter races.619 said:0 -
Jack has promised to reveal his mini ARSE for US at 0900 Monday.tyson said:
Thanks for giving me the heads upjustin124 said:
JackW did say he would not return until Sunday eve!tyson said:HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....0 -
And the point you have ignored yet again is that had the bill been rejected at any one of those stages after signing we would still have been bound by the Treaty. Rejection by Parliament would have meant nothing in terms of the legality of the treaty and it's application in the UK. All that would have happened is that any area where the UK failed to comply with the treaty conditions we would have wound up in front of the ECJ.Chris said:I'll just suggest that anyone who is still confused about the process by which EU treaties have been agreed in the past should contemplate the timetable for the Lisbon Treaty:
13 December 2007 Signed
11 March 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill passed by Commons
18 June 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill passed by Lords
19 June 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill received Royal Assent
16 July 2008 Ratified by UK
1 December 2009 Came into force after ratification by all member states
0 -
The Italians are bonkers for their conspiracy theories....I haven't heard of that one, but I know about the list. I forget who wrote them..... but the Dark Heart of Italy and also the Monster of Florence are must reads to understand the Italian psyche....IanB2 said:
You live in Italy, the home of conspiracy theories and where they are generally true, I believe? I assume you have heard of dietrologia?tyson said:HYUFD said:
Looks like Trump's final 72 hour marathon through most of those states (including Wisconsin) could be crucial, especially as Hillary seems to be spending half the weekend in bed!weejonnie said:Surveymonkey (538 adjusted)
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....
0 -
Its not mine either but is the description of the Royal Prerogative correct? The point about the FTPA was that additional hurdles were put in the way of a PM who wants to dissolve Parliament and have an election. If those additional conditions are removed we are back to the position where the majority in the HoC are entitled to vote for a dissolution and an election as and when they think fit. That is not really the Royal Prerogative, that is a decision of the Commons itself.AlastairMeeks said:I'd be interested in the view of a constitutional lawyer as to whether the mere repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act would restore the Royal Prerogative in the area. The conventional view is that the Royal Prerogative is a residue. If it has already been displaced in a particular respect, does it re-emerge if the displacement is removed? The answer isn't immediately clear to me but it's not my specialism.
If that analysis is correct then the decision is being left with the Commons. Theoretically, a PM who for whatever reason could not secure a majority for a dissolution could not have one. In those circumstances it would be for whoever could achieve that majority in the Commons to approach the Queen for appointment as PM.0 -
In your view of course, but so far everyone is second guessing what Mrs May is up to.AlastairMeeks said:
The message they're sending is that they're panicking.Alanbrooke said:That Liz Truss statement couldnt be much weaker. HMG sending a message I'd say.
She's not backing off Brexit
She's not boxing herself in to the cant criticise the judges trap
She's not pouring more oil on the fire
Calm under fire looks more like it.0 -
Yes this argument with Chris is not about this specific instance. The law has changed since the last treaty easy signed anyway.IanB2 said:
If you read the judgement you will see that the issue is not the ratification of treaties per se, but the change in rights and entitlements granted originally by parliament that would inexorably follow two years after the A50 notification is submitted.Richard_Tyndall said:
And all I can say again is that you clearly don't understand what you are quoting . The very document you quote makes it absurdly clear that prior to 2010 Parliament had no formal role in the ratification of treaties and if they voted against the primary legislation it made no difference to the legal status of the treaty and the UK was still bound by it.Chris said:
I'll just repeat one more time that treaties which involve changes in UK law, including EU treaties, have always required primary legislation, and I'll refer you yet again to the document that explains it all quite clearly (which, ironically enough, is an archived copy predating the change in the law you keep referring to):
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
That is, in effect, the whole point of the judgment. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a dialogue with the deaf.
I suspect you are just hoping no one will actually challenge the garbage you are spouting or go and actually look at the documents.0 -
Very weak statement from Truss. Why? Not sure I see any advantage accruing to her, or her government, or her party, from failing to point out the politically obvious - that calling judges traitors isn't a healthy direction of travel for the national press, nor is an email expressing hope that a litigant dies of cancer, the acceptable face of trolling. (It is in fact a pointless, spiteful, nasty little criminal offence - nor, scientific evidence suggests, has it proven more efficacious than voodoo dolls at its purported aim, the otherwise inexplicable onset of Brexit cancer.)0
-
And glamorous too....Alanbrooke said:
In your view of course, but so far everyone is second guessing what Mrs May is up to.AlastairMeeks said:
The message they're sending is that they're panicking.Alanbrooke said:That Liz Truss statement couldnt be much weaker. HMG sending a message I'd say.
She's not backing off Brexit
She's not boxing herself in to the cant criticise the judges trap
She's not pouring more oil on the fire
Calm under fire looks more like it.
0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:
And the point you have ignored yet again is that had the bill been rejected at any one of those stages after signing we would still have been bound by the Treaty. Rejection by Parliament would have meant nothing in terms of the legality of the treaty and it's application in the UK. All that would have happened is that any area where the UK failed to comply with the treaty conditions we would have wound up in front of the ECJ.Chris said:I'll just suggest that anyone who is still confused about the process by which EU treaties have been agreed in the past should contemplate the timetable for the Lisbon Treaty:
13 December 2007 Signed
11 March 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill passed by Commons
18 June 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill passed by Lords
19 June 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill received Royal Assent
16 July 2008 Ratified by UK
1 December 2009 Came into force after ratification by all member states
Is that true? Does the full treaty still come into effect when one member has not ratified it?
0 -
Under fire, for sure.Alanbrooke said:
In your view of course, but so far everyone is second guessing what Mrs May is up to.AlastairMeeks said:
The message they're sending is that they're panicking.Alanbrooke said:That Liz Truss statement couldnt be much weaker. HMG sending a message I'd say.
She's not backing off Brexit
She's not boxing herself in to the cant criticise the judges trap
She's not pouring more oil on the fire
Calm under fire looks more like it.0 -
The Government wants to separate the initiation of the process (Article 50 under Royal Prerogative) from the actual exit (repeal of the ECA by vote in Parliament). This judgment says the two have be considered together because Article 50 is an irrevocable step that pre-empts the ECA repeal.. the Government would have done better to have called Article 50 straight after the referendum and not risked a court case. The appeal buys them a month and they might win it.AlastairMeeks said:We're missing something important. The government is truly desperate to win the Article 50 case on appeal. That's the only possible reading of the desultory statement put out by Liz Truss (it's a blunder on that front too, mind). But why?
It must be about what the government would need to put into an Article 50 bill. Perhaps a one line enabling bill won't serve the purpose.
We need to understand just what the government is so desperate about.
PS Just saw the statement by Liz Truss. Attacking the competence of the judges in this case is part of the government spin operation I think0 -
If you can't tell the difference between those and "Enemy of the People" you are a moron.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/7948965852096102400 -
The FTPA says that it is the only way the Parliament could be dissolved. At that point the prerogative ceased to exist.DavidL said:
Its not mine either but is the description of the Royal Prerogative correct? The point about the FTPA was that additional hurdles were put in the way of a PM who wants to dissolve Parliament and have an election. If those additional conditions are removed we are back to the position where the majority in the HoC are entitled to vote for a dissolution and an election as and when they think fit. That is not really the Royal Prerogative, that is a decision of the Commons itself.AlastairMeeks said:I'd be interested in the view of a constitutional lawyer as to whether the mere repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act would restore the Royal Prerogative in the area. The conventional view is that the Royal Prerogative is a residue. If it has already been displaced in a particular respect, does it re-emerge if the displacement is removed? The answer isn't immediately clear to me but it's not my specialism.
If that analysis is correct then the decision is being left with the Commons. Theoretically, a PM who for whatever reason could not secure a majority for a dissolution could not have one. In those circumstances it would be for whoever could achieve that majority in the Commons to approach the Queen for appointment as PM.0 -
" Many treaties require a change to domestic legislation which will be subject to the usualRichard_Tyndall said:
And all I can say again is that you clearly don't understand what you are quoting . The very document you quote makes it absurdly clear that prior to 2010 Parliament had no formal role in the ratification of treaties and if they voted against the primary legislation it made no difference to the legal status of the treaty and the UK was still bound by it.Chris said:
I'll just repeat one more time that treaties which involve changes in UK law, including EU treaties, have always required primary legislation, and I'll refer you yet again to the document that explains it all quite clearly (which, ironically enough, is an archived copy predating the change in the law you keep referring to):
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
That is, in effect, the whole point of the judgment. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a dialogue with the deaf.
I suspect you are just hoping no one will actually challenge the garbage you are spouting or go and actually look at the documents.
parliamentary procedures."
That's not clear to me.0 -
Some Leavers are starting to sound like Flat Earthers. And this is after they won. It's actually quite worrying - who knows what they'll turn on when EU membership is no longer a factor.AlastairMeeks said:
I didn't say that you couldn't say it, though you should note that it might well be libellous. However, making baseless statements of that type marks out the person makingi them as an odious cretin with crackpot tendencies. Serious claims require serious evidence if you are going to be taken seriously.Philip_Thompson said:
So what?AlastairMeeks said:
@SeanT bollocks. It's a full frontal attack on the impartiality of the judiciary without a scintilla of evidence other than you don't like the decision.SeanT said:
They're attacking the judges for being liberal-left elitists. Which is what they did last week.AlastairMeeks said:
In none of those cases did the Mail imply that the judges were biased. Far from making your point, they undermine it.SeanT said:An historical note.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/794896585209610240
Moreover, there is a great historical irony here. Many decades ago, from the 19th century onwards, the Left would attack British judges as being "reactionary Tories", "tools of the Establishment", "enemies of the working classes".
And the Left, in many cases, was correct. The judges, given their background, often came down, unfairly, in favour of property, capital, London, the upper middle classes and the Tory interest. The judges surely did their best to be balanced, but their psychosocial DNA made it impossible.
Now we have a legal class and a judiciary - of which you are an example - which is overwhelmingly haute bourgeois, liberal, metropolitan and, crucially, europhile. Many of them have personal interests in European law firms, have worked within European law for decades, and so forth.
It would take inhuman skill for judges to avoid internal bias towards EU membership in these circumstances, no matter how hard they strive to be neutral. I do not believe our judges are inhuman. Our newspapers therefore have every right to question their neutrality, in this case, just as the Left was justified with its criticisms in the 19th century.
It's part of our democracy. Checks and balances.
That's what free speech entitles. Without the right to attack the impartiality of the judiciary (with or without evidence) there is no free speech and no checks or balances on a dictatorial judiciary.0 -
That's the PM's job, she ap[pears to be able to endure the fire better than our thin skinned judiciaryIanB2 said:
Under fire, for sure.Alanbrooke said:
In your view of course, but so far everyone is second guessing what Mrs May is up to.AlastairMeeks said:
The message they're sending is that they're panicking.Alanbrooke said:That Liz Truss statement couldnt be much weaker. HMG sending a message I'd say.
She's not backing off Brexit
She's not boxing herself in to the cant criticise the judges trap
She's not pouring more oil on the fire
Calm under fire looks more like it.0
