politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The legacy from the coalition that ties Theresa May’s hands on
Comments
-
Just please concentrate and listen to what I am saying.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
The treaty has to be ratified before it has any legal force. If parliament had refused to pass the primary legislation that the treaty required, then it would not have been ratified.
Which part of that are you having difficulty understanding?0 -
Like the gutter press, you appear happy to allege bias, yet a reading of the actual court judgement suggests that their conclusion was soundly grounded in law.SeanT said:
I've given you evidence. Baron Thomas, for one, had a serious conflict of interest. He should have recused.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:AlastairMeeks said: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.
Imagine a court hearing a technical case on the legality of Abolishing Slavery, and one of the three judges was a slave owner himself, and a founding member of the Slave-Owning Society, dedicated to promoting the benefits of slavery around the world.
Would he be expected to set all that aside and hear the case with pure impartiality?0 -
Never knew you had a thing for hi-vis jackets!tyson said:
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 -
Clinton average national poll lead down to 1.8% with RCP today0
-
On winning... as MorrisDancer puts it, he'll believe we are leaving the EU once we've left the EU.Stark_Dawning said:
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 -
Where does the judgment say that ? All it says is that prerogative powers cannot be used to invoke A50; parliament can.FF43 said:
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.
0 -
It means that before the treaty can come into force, some legislation has to be passed, and that has to be done in the usual way.Philip_Thompson said:
" 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.
Obviously if that legislation can't be passed, the government can't ratify the treaty, so it won't come into effect.0 -
The judgment seemed pretty conclusive, so I'd say the chances were low. The government are already planning for the necessary bill.FF43 said:
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.0 -
Though the ECJ only applies once its been ratified by all states which only happened in the UK on 16 July 2008.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
So you're saying if the Maastricht Rebels had won, or for Lisbon if there'd been a rebellion that demanded a referendum (which then failed) then we'd have still been considered to have ratified the Treaty?0 -
I thought she looked extremely fetching in her building clobber.RobD said:
Never knew you had a thing for hi-vis jackets!tyson said:
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.
Seriously, TM is exceptionally stylish...maybe she could lose the pearls occasionally.....
0 -
Yeah, I always take those with a pinch of salt.nunu said:0 -
I do not think a general election in 2017 will happen.
The reason I feel pretty sure about this is the fact public spending is still being constrained by austerity. Social security benefits are still being frozen up to 2019, whist inflation will creep up making even the employed see a drop in real disposable income. Not the most precipitous intervention to an election being called. Sure the C of E could raise benefits with inflation to insult the low income individuals in society but I doubt that is what he will do in the autumn statement.
I still think that Brexit is a massive economic mistake and the most vociferous advocates of this situation tend to be either politicians who have inflation proof salary's or businessmen and the wealthy. These groups of people do not have to worry about how a drop in living standards due to sterling's fall will affect them. I think those who advocate Brexit and claim they do not mind having a 20% fall in living standards should start a social compact fund where they give away money to the lowest income people who will be hit hardest by Brexit.0 -
I reckon Trump's final rallies will be in Florida and Pennsylvania.0
-
I thought ABs were generally pro-Remain, and CDs were pro-Leave?The_Taxman said:I still think that Brexit is a massive economic mistake and the most vociferous advocates of this situation tend to be either politicians who have inflation proof salary's or businessmen and the wealthy. These groups of people do not have to worry about how a drop in living standards due to sterling's fall will affect them. I think those who advocate Brexit and claim they do not mind having a 20% fall in living standards should start a social compact fund where they give away money to the lowest income people who will be hit hardest by Brexit.
0 -
Most of the wealthy voted Remain it was the white working class and lower middle-class who voted LeaveThe_Taxman said:I do not think a general election in 2017 will happen.
The reason I feel pretty sure about this is the fact public spending is still being constrained by austerity. Social security benefits are still being frozen up to 2019, whist inflation will creep up making even the employed see a drop in real disposable income. Not the most precipitous intervention to an election being called. Sure the C of E could raise benefits with inflation to insult the low income individuals in society but I doubt that is what he will do in the autumn statement.
I still think that Brexit is a massive economic mistake and the most vociferous advocates of this situation tend to be either politicians who have inflation proof salary's or businessmen and the wealthy. These groups of people do not have to worry about how a drop in living standards due to sterling's fall will affect them. I think those who advocate Brexit and claim they do not mind having a 20% fall in living standards should start a social compact fund where they give away money to the lowest income people who will be hit hardest by Brexit.0 -
Can't change the law by manifesto, but it would help passage through the Commons at least.SeanT said:
All in all, it's a mess. I do believe TMay will have to call a General Election to clear the air. She needs a mandate to pursue Brexit as she and her government sees fit, without any more interference from the courts.0 -
Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?0
-
The treaty wouldn't have been ratified in those circumstances. Per the news report I just saw when I was checking the dates, even after the primary legislation had passed, the government waited nearly a month before ratifying the treaty, because a legal challenge was before the courts.Philip_Thompson said:
Though the ECJ only applies once its been ratified by all states which only happened in the UK on 16 July 2008.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
So you're saying if the Maastricht Rebels had won, or for Lisbon if there'd been a rebellion that demanded a referendum (which then failed) then we'd have still been considered to have ratified the Treaty?0 -
No, I don't think they are, and it'd be weird if they were in both the High Court and Supreme Court (ugh) simultaneously.Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
0 -
So what sort of person do you think would be fit to make legal pronouncements on constitutional law? Only a hardcore Leaver I take it.SeanT said:
They are attacking the judges for being liberal elitists, in all cases. Last week and these four.Alistair said:
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/794896585209610240
I agree that Enemies of the People is a step up, but if you read the thread, I reckon the Mail has a case. Brexit is huge and massively emotional (look at Meeks melting down, daily) and the idea judges with a vested, deep, lifelong interest in European legal integration can be virginally neutral when making judgements that could potentially thwart Brexit is naive to the point of idiocy.
All in all, it's a mess. I do believe TMay will have to call a General Election to clear the air. She needs a mandate to pursue Brexit as she and her government sees fit, without any more interference from the courts.0 -
FPT. There are some prize fuckwits about, aren't there?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.
Yep And Richard is high on that list
0 -
It's Italian for (insofar as it can be translated) "behind-ism". As an example, let's say a politician comes on the news arguing that the government should do more to support disabled people living independently in their own homes. We Brits are thinking 'that sounds like a good idea, but where's the money coming from?'. Meanwhile the Italian is thinking 'surely that's the guy whose wife's cousin runs that company making equipment for disbabled people?'tyson said:
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 -
Looking in the round the current efforts by rich metropolitans to frustrate the electorate will ultimately wreck the system they have created.SeanT said:
They are attacking the judges for being liberal elitists, in all cases. Last week and these four.Alistair said:
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/794896585209610240
I agree that Enemies of the People is a step up, but if you read the thread, I reckon the Mail has a case. Brexit is huge and massively emotional (look at Meeks melting down, daily) and the idea judges with a vested, deep, lifelong interest in European legal integration can be virginally neutral when making judgements that could potentially thwart Brexit is naive to the point of idiocy.
All in all, it's a mess. I do believe TMay will have to call a General Election to clear the air. She needs a mandate to pursue Brexit as she and her government sees fit, without any more interference from the courts.
Political positions are hardening and the third way centre is slowly getting chewed up, soon they will have nowhere to go and a future government will at some point unpick the Blair settlement.
0 -
Darn it.
I'm (reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that the judges were correct.
* The referendum was unquestionably advisory, so cannot be automatically implemented.
* Invoking A50 will irrevocably remove legal rights.
* The government by itself cannot take away rights, so parliament must be involved at the start.
Hard to argue against those technical points.
The problem is that the whole think stinks of trickery to avoid a (real) Brexit, and leads to further distrust in the establishment.
0 -
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.0 -
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
Very good Ian....and what a good example....that is so true.IanB2 said:
It's Italian for (insofar as it can be translated) "behind-ism". As an example, let's say a politician comes on the news arguing that the government should do more to support disabled people living independently in their own homes. We Brits are thinking 'that sounds like a good idea, but where's the money coming from?'. Meanwhile the Italian is thinking 'surely that's the guy whose wife's cousin runs that company making equipment for disbabled people?'tyson said:
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 -
Yet there is the argument from Newton-Dunn in the Sun that, whatever her problems now, the challenge of getting the final deal through parliament in 2019, with a small majority and divided party, means that she will need to keep the 'I call an election' card in her hand until then. Pretty convincing, I'd say?SeanT said:
They are attacking the judges for being liberal elitists, in all cases. Last week and these four.Alistair said:
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/794896585209610240
I agree that Enemies of the People is a step up, but if you read the thread, I reckon the Mail has a case. Brexit is huge and massively emotional (look at Meeks melting down, daily) and the idea judges with a vested, deep, lifelong interest in European legal integration can be virginally neutral when making judgements that could potentially thwart Brexit is naive to the point of idiocy.
All in all, it's a mess. I do believe TMay will have to call a General Election to clear the air. She needs a mandate to pursue Brexit as she and her government sees fit, without any more interference from the courts.0 -
Send it back without that amendment and ram it through.DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
Wait, are we seriously arguing that an expert on European Law should be barred from ruling on a matter of European Law?Stark_Dawning said:
So what sort of person do you think would be fit to make legal pronouncements on constitutional law? Only a hardcore Leaver I take it.SeanT said:
They are attacking the judges for being liberal elitists, in all cases. Last week and these four.Alistair said:
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/794896585209610240
I agree that Enemies of the People is a step up, but if you read the thread, I reckon the Mail has a case. Brexit is huge and massively emotional (look at Meeks melting down, daily) and the idea judges with a vested, deep, lifelong interest in European legal integration can be virginally neutral when making judgements that could potentially thwart Brexit is naive to the point of idiocy.
All in all, it's a mess. I do believe TMay will have to call a General Election to clear the air. She needs a mandate to pursue Brexit as she and her government sees fit, without any more interference from the courts.
In any case, this doesn't directly have anything to do with European law, but rather the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 which abolished the Royal Prerogative in treaty ratification and put the Ponsonby Rule on statutory footing.
May cannot just will new Royal Prerogatives into existence.0 -
Gawd, and they aren't even in their regalia!Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.0 -
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
quite an interesting anecdote for those who think Latino's will do it for Hiliary from comments on youtube,
"I have a lot of Mexican friends and you'd be surprised to know that the talk around the campfire is they actually are actually preferring Trump over Hillary, here's the thing a lot of Mexicans here in the US actually have permanent residence, not saying that they got here legally but most have a number much like a SS# that identifies them and they pay taxes which is why a lot of them are hired by big companies that hire foreigners that have similar numbers from their country, there are some that actually use someone else's SS# but I think those are less and less likely now a days, they work make money they hire attorneys which is an expensive process to put in the permanent residence application and with time which usually at a Turtle pace their application is approved, all of them want Trump"0 -
I had an interesting debate yesterday with an SNP QC who was of the view that this argument about taking away rights was a novelty with no basis in our precedents or law. And he was a strong remainer. The government needs new and sharper arguments. I very much hope that Richard Keen, the Advocate General, is brought in for the appeal. He knows how to shape the arguments into a way that can win.MarkHopkins said:
Darn it.
I'm (reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that the judges were correct.
* The referendum was unquestionably advisory, so cannot be automatically implemented.
* Invoking A50 will irrevocably remove legal rights.
* The government by itself cannot take away rights, so parliament must be involved at the start.
Hard to argue against those technical points.
The problem is that the whole think stinks of trickery to avoid a (real) Brexit, and leads to further distrust in the establishment.0 -
Absolutely reeking of enemy of the people-ness.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.0 -
How is that enforceable? What's stopping the government just effectively ignoring the conditions, and just activating it anyway?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
The relevant section of the CRG Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/25/section/20
Implication fairly clearly is that there is no Royal Prerogative to ratify any kind of binding international agreement that has not been set before Parliament.
I don't think the wording ambiguous, neither did the High Court.0 -
The President of the Supreme Court, not only is he is Jewish but he's worked for Rothschilds, plus he did a degree in chemistry.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.
I also expect the ages of Supreme Court Justices will be mentioned a lot in the run up to the appeal, and depending on the result too.0 -
Too old, or too young?TheScreamingEagles said:
The President of the Supreme Court, not only is he is Jewish but he's worked for Rothschilds, plus he's a chemist.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.
I also expect the ages of Supreme Court Justices will be mentioned a lot in the run up to the appeal, and depending on the result too.
0 -
Hyufd...you are right..if Clinton gets the ethnic states....but loses the industrial belt and NH even; she still wins..Trump has to pinch a Colorado or Nevada.HYUFD said:
Florida, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire I believe. He is in Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and Colorado today, Pennsylvania and Iowa tomorrowAndyJS said:I reckon Trump's final rallies will be in Florida and Pennsylvania.
0 -
I believe that one of Trump's nearly innumerable insults and accusations was that Clinton was taking artificial substances to improve her performance and stamina. The USA is being embarrassing, but they're not the only ones I suppose.peter_from_putney said:
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 -
Openly old openly gay openly ex-olympic openly fencer openly judge.RobD said:
Too old, or too young?TheScreamingEagles said:
The President of the Supreme Court, not only is he is Jewish but he's worked for Rothschilds, plus he's a chemist.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.
I also expect the ages of Supreme Court Justices will be mentioned a lot in the run up to the appeal, and depending on the result too.0 -
The Lords would be signing their own death warrant. I hope they do it.RobD said:
How is that enforceable? What's stopping the government just effectively ignoring the conditions, and just activating it anyway?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
@eddiemarsan: A high court judge, a gay ex Olympic fencer and the Daily Mail has blacklisted you as an enemy of the state. Could you be any fucker cooler.grabcocque said:Openly old openly gay openly ex-olympic openly fencer openly judge.
0 -
Well JackW would consider them whippersnappers, but IIRC the average age of the Justices is 69 years old.RobD said:
Too old, or too young?TheScreamingEagles said:
The President of the Supreme Court, not only is he is Jewish but he's worked for Rothschilds, plus he's a chemist.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.
I also expect the ages of Supreme Court Justices will be mentioned a lot in the run up to the appeal, and depending on the result too.0 -
'kin hell.. who let an openly judge person become a supreme court justice.grabcocque said:
Openly old openly gay openly ex-olympic openly fencer openly judge.RobD said:
Too old, or too young?TheScreamingEagles said:
The President of the Supreme Court, not only is he is Jewish but he's worked for Rothschilds, plus he's a chemist.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.
I also expect the ages of Supreme Court Justices will be mentioned a lot in the run up to the appeal, and depending on the result too.0 -
The judges are free to do their job (though one surely should have recused himself), while the press are free to do theirs.Stark_Dawning said:
So what sort of person do you think would be fit to make legal pronouncements on constitutional law? Only a hardcore Leaver I take it.SeanT said:
They are attacking the judges for being liberal elitists, in all cases. Last week and these four.Alistair said:
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/794896585209610240
I agree that Enemies of the People is a step up, but if you read the thread, I reckon the Mail has a case. Brexit is huge and massively emotional (look at Meeks melting down, daily) and the idea judges with a vested, deep, lifelong interest in European legal integration can be virginally neutral when making judgements that could potentially thwart Brexit is naive to the point of idiocy.
All in all, it's a mess. I do believe TMay will have to call a General Election to clear the air. She needs a mandate to pursue Brexit as she and her government sees fit, without any more interference from the courts.
The government should not interfere in either a free press or a free judiciary.0 -
Yes but 57% voted Remain an even higher percentage of C2s voted Leave. There are exceptions of course as in every election but it was untrue to say that Brexit was the wealthy screwing over the less wealthySeanT said:
Not as black and white and that. 43% of ABs voted LEAVE.HYUFD said:
Most of the wealthy voted Remain it was the white working class and lower middle-class who voted LeaveThe_Taxman said:I do not think a general election in 2017 will happen.
The reason I feel pretty sure about this is the fact public spending is still being constrained by austerity. Social security benefits are still being frozen up to 2019, whist inflation will creep up making even the employed see a drop in real disposable income. Not the most precipitous intervention to an election being called. Sure the C of E could raise benefits with inflation to insult the low income individuals in society but I doubt that is what he will do in the autumn statement.
I still think that Brexit is a massive economic mistake and the most vociferous advocates of this situation tend to be either politicians who have inflation proof salary's or businessmen and the wealthy. These groups of people do not have to worry about how a drop in living standards due to sterling's fall will affect them. I think those who advocate Brexit and claim they do not mind having a 20% fall in living standards should start a social compact fund where they give away money to the lowest income people who will be hit hardest by Brexit.
The country was finely divided on all levels.0 -
I was thinking about amendments, but they're non-trivial. "The Government shall seek membership of the Customs Union", for instance, is not something you can put a law (and if you did, the Government would say "OK, we sought it, but couldn't get it, oh well"). The most effective amendment I can think of at the moment would be "Once an agreement has been reached as envisaged by article 50, the Government shall consult the people in a further referendum before implementing the agreement". Technically that would lead to a choice of "bad deal or no deal", but in reality rejection of the deal would lead to one of the EU's famous clock-stopping exercises while everyone considered the best way forward.DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
Well if they lose the case and are told that they need a Bill they have a problem. They could use the Parliament Act but this will take time and cause a further delay.RobD said:
How is that enforceable? What's stopping the government just effectively ignoring the conditions, and just activating it anyway?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
7 out of 11 went to Oxford or Cambridge - diversity in actionTheScreamingEagles said:
The President of the Supreme Court, not only is he is Jewish but he's worked for Rothschilds, plus he did a degree in chemistry.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.
I also expect the ages of Supreme Court Justices will be mentioned a lot in the run up to the appeal, and depending on the result too.0 -
That's besides the point... the government could say it would seek membership, but the negotiations go on behind closed doors.DavidL said:
Well if they lose the case and are told that they need a Bill they have a problem. They could use the Parliament Act but this will take time and cause a further delay.RobD said:
How is that enforceable? What's stopping the government just effectively ignoring the conditions, and just activating it anyway?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
DavidL said:
I had an interesting debate yesterday with an SNP QC who was of the view that this argument about taking away rights was a novelty with no basis in our precedents or law. And he was a strong remainer. The government needs new and sharper arguments. I very much hope that Richard Keen, the Advocate General, is brought in for the appeal. He knows how to shape the arguments into a way that can win.MarkHopkins said:
Darn it.
I'm (reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that the judges were correct.
* The referendum was unquestionably advisory, so cannot be automatically implemented.
* Invoking A50 will irrevocably remove legal rights.
* The government by itself cannot take away rights, so parliament must be involved at the start.
Hard to argue against those technical points.
The problem is that the whole think stinks of trickery to avoid a (real) Brexit, and leads to further distrust in the establishment.
If that point was broken, it would certainly change the conclusion.
0 -
Lord (Paddy) Ashdown's position on today's Any Questions suggests that it wouldn't. If the LibDems are wary of painting themselves into the 'anti-democracy' corner, how much more painful will it be for Labour peers whose supporters in the country are so much more divided on the issue?Alanbrooke said:
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
It can only stop the clock if 28 nations unanimously agree to do so.NickPalmer said:
I was thinking about amendments, but they're non-trivial. "The Government shall seek membership of the Customs Union", for instance, is not something you can put a law (and if you did, the Government would say "OK, we sought it, but couldn't get it, oh well"). The most effective amendment I can think of at the moment would be "Once an agreement has been reached as envisaged by article 50, the Government shall consult the people in a further referendum before implementing the agreement". Technically that would lead to a choice of "bad deal or no deal", but in reality rejection of the deal would lead to one of the EU's famous clock-stopping exercises while everyone considered the best way forward.DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 say we reject the referendum as not generous enough to us and the French get in a stink and veto an extension as it was too generous to us then we are forced into a hardest of hard Brexits.0 -
On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles0 -
That is diverse.Alanbrooke said:
7 out of 11 went to Oxford or Cambridge - diversity in actionTheScreamingEagles said:
The President of the Supreme Court, not only is he is Jewish but he's worked for Rothschilds, plus he did a degree in chemistry.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.
I also expect the ages of Supreme Court Justices will be mentioned a lot in the run up to the appeal, and depending on the result too.
University of Cambridge = The best
University of Oxford = Complete dump0 -
Beat you to it Scott on the previous post. Copying just makes you look as dumb as you really are.Scott_P said:
FPT. There are some prize fuckwits about, aren't there?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.
Yep And Richard is high on that list0 -
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles0 -
You talk as if the vast majority of the electorate are going to be following the legal nuances of this in detail. They wont.IanB2 said:
Lord (Paddy) Ashdown's position on today's Any Questions suggests that it wouldn't. If the LibDems are wary of painting themselves into the 'anti-democracy' corner, how much more painful will it be for Labour peers whose supporters in the country are so much more divided on the issue?Alanbrooke said:
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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.
They'll look at : we had a vote, you are stopping it it's undemocratic, get rid of the bums
0 -
Makes you proud to be BritishTheScreamingEagles said:On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles 0 -
Blinking heckers...trying to wade through all this legal twaddle to try and find some nuggets on the US election is hard going. I'm mean FFS...it's the Saturday before the biggest betting night in politics ever...
TSE....can you not just create some kind of junk folder where all these endless and boring legal posts go. To think there could well be years of this to come,,,and those talking about bloody trade deals too. Oh gawd......0 -
It would almost be worth it.Alanbrooke said:
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
More went to Oxford than Cambridge.TheScreamingEagles said:
That is diverse.Alanbrooke said:
7 out of 11 went to Oxford or Cambridge - diversity in actionTheScreamingEagles said:
The President of the Supreme Court, not only is he is Jewish but he's worked for Rothschilds, plus he did a degree in chemistry.Chris said:
No. But I wouldn'tbe in their shoes:Philip_Thompson said:Are any of the three justices who ruled in the High Court case amongst the 11 members of the Supreme Court that will rule on an appeal?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html
A quick look through their biographies suggests that one of them is Jewish, one is Irish, one is a WOMAN (!?!), one has openly worked in Germany, one is a medieval historian and another has a Welsh surname.
I also expect the ages of Supreme Court Justices will be mentioned a lot in the run up to the appeal, and depending on the result too.
University of Cambridge = The best
University of Oxford = Complete dump
Didnt Dave and George go to Oxford ?0 -
There was probably a big age divide in how the wealthy voted. Those over 60 most likely voted Leave, narrowly. The young wealthy would have voted Remain by a massive margin. Also a gender divide, with young wealthy women being more pro-Remain than young wealthy men.HYUFD said:
Most of the wealthy voted Remain it was the white working class and lower middle-class who voted LeaveThe_Taxman said:I do not think a general election in 2017 will happen.
The reason I feel pretty sure about this is the fact public spending is still being constrained by austerity. Social security benefits are still being frozen up to 2019, whist inflation will creep up making even the employed see a drop in real disposable income. Not the most precipitous intervention to an election being called. Sure the C of E could raise benefits with inflation to insult the low income individuals in society but I doubt that is what he will do in the autumn statement.
I still think that Brexit is a massive economic mistake and the most vociferous advocates of this situation tend to be either politicians who have inflation proof salary's or businessmen and the wealthy. These groups of people do not have to worry about how a drop in living standards due to sterling's fall will affect them. I think those who advocate Brexit and claim they do not mind having a 20% fall in living standards should start a social compact fund where they give away money to the lowest income people who will be hit hardest by Brexit.0 -
A court challenge could have derailed the ratification. A challenge by Parliament could not.Philip_Thompson said:
Though the ECJ only applies once its been ratified by all states which only happened in the UK on 16 July 2008.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
So you're saying if the Maastricht Rebels had won, or for Lisbon if there'd been a rebellion that demanded a referendum (which then failed) then we'd have still been considered to have ratified the Treaty?
To quote from the very opening paragraph of the document Chris is relying upon :
"According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown. Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them"
Parliament voting to deny provision does not change the fact that we have signed and ratified the treaty. It just means that we end up in breach of its terms.
Chris is simply wrong.0 -
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.grabcocque said:
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles0 -
Italy is a great place to visit (and I have done so once or twice a year for the past twenty five), but the reality is so different from first impressions. When you go there the first time you see the sunshine, scenery, amazing history, and all these apparently carefree people enjoying life, good food and wine, and it all seems so laid back and relaxed compared to the rat race back home.tyson said:
Very good Ian....and what a good example....that is so true.IanB2 said:
It's Italian for (insofar as it can be translated) "behind-ism". As an example, let's say a politician comes on the news arguing that the government should do more to support disabled people living independently in their own homes. We Brits are thinking 'that sounds like a good idea, but where's the money coming from?'. Meanwhile the Italian is thinking 'surely that's the guy whose wife's cousin runs that company making equipment for disbabled people?'tyson said:
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: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
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....
It takes a bit of time scratching beneath the surface to see that Italians are the most neurotic, conformist, small-c conservative people, whose lives are dominated by fear of what everyone else thinks in a way that resembles the Middle East more than Europe, where everyone keeps a personal register of favours given and received to the point where objective truth is merely an amusing subject for late night discussion, at best.
It remains a favourite place to visit, but I would never want to live there (for very long).0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.0
-
I dunno about you, but I'm discussing one of the most fundamental questions of constitutional importance this country has had in a long while.tyson said:Blinking heckers...trying to wade through all this legal twaddle to try and find some nuggets on the US election is hard going. I'm mean FFS...it's the Saturday before the biggest betting night in politics ever...
TSE....can you not just create some kind of junk folder where all these endless and boring legal posts go. To think there could well be years of this to come,,,and those talking about bloody trade deals too. Oh gawd......
The Supreme Court is convening the full court *for the first time in its history* to hear the government's appeal. This is clearly, in the minds of some of the finest legal minds in the country, a question of some serious political and legal importance.
If you don't like it just shit off you tedious old bumtrump.0 -
This is Dave Leip's timeline of how the 2012 American election panned out on the night. Includes the precise time when each state was "called" by the networks. It's a useful reminder of how the night usually unfolds:
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/ElectionNight2012/pe2012elecnighttime.php0 -
Indeed. That was the whole point of the 2010 change in the law to give Parliament the ability to have a say over treaties.grabcocque said:The relevant section of the CRG Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/25/section/20
Implication fairly clearly is that there is no Royal Prerogative to ratify any kind of binding international agreement that has not been set before Parliament.
I don't think the wording ambiguous, neither did the High Court.0 -
OT the Toon are winning 2-0. Happy days!0
-
Many Conservative MPs would not support repealing the Act, it introduces the stability the country and the markets need. It is unlikely to get past the Lords anyway.0
-
It would be the silver lining in the cloud. Or maybe during HoL refurbishment Theresa could find them a nice new home in East GlasgowDavidL said:
It would almost be worth it.Alanbrooke said:
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
From you own quoteRichard_Tyndall said:
To quote from the very opening paragraph of the document Chris is relying upon :
"According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown. Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them"
Parliament voting to deny provision does not change the fact that we have signed and ratified the treaty. It just means that we end up in breach of its terms.
Chris is simply wrong.
Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision
Parliament can deny the treaty
Oh dear...
You are wrong0 -
I disagree with your reading of that text. From the very text you're quoting: (1) Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; (2) in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty ...Richard_Tyndall said:A court challenge could have derailed the ratification. A challenge by Parliament could not.
To quote from the very opening paragraph of the document Chris is relying upon :
"According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown. Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them"
Parliament voting to deny provision does not change the fact that we have signed and ratified the treaty. It just means that we end up in breach of its terms.
Chris is simply wrong.
(1) If a treaty requires a change in UK legislation, or the grant of public money, then Parliament can vote to deny provision.
(2) In other circumstances Parliament can't overcome the will of the executive (other than withdrawing confidence or changing their minds) therefore clearly implying that in the aforementioned circumstances it can overcome the will of the executive by denying the required provision.0 -
Don't tell anyone, but constitutional (law) discussions give me the horn. It is the only subject I find more exciting than AV.tyson said:Blinking heckers...trying to wade through all this legal twaddle to try and find some nuggets on the US election is hard going. I'm mean FFS...it's the Saturday before the biggest betting night in politics ever...
TSE....can you not just create some kind of junk folder where all these endless and boring legal posts go. To think there could well be years of this to come,,,and those talking about bloody trade deals too. Oh gawd......
Just remember, the last chap who thought about challenging Parliamentary sovereignty had his head chopped off, and he was only the King of England.0 -
You've lost me there. At what point does keeping a personal register of favours start undermining objective truth?IanB2 said:It takes a bit of time scratching beneath the surface to see that Italians are the most neurotic, conformist, small-c conservative people, whose lives are dominated by fear of what everyone else thinks in a way that resembles the Middle East more than Europe, where everyone keeps a personal register of favours given and received to the point where objective truth is merely an amusing subject for late night discussion, at best.
0 -
???MarkHopkins said: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.
The moment we enter Brexit negotiations, the EU is de facto and de jure accepting that Article 50 has been served, as it would have been minuted by the Council of Ministers. Only unanimity of all the countries in the EU could delay or cancel at that point.0 -
Fine - but I enjoy this site because it offers (at least the illusion of) discussion at a rather higher and better informed level than that.Alanbrooke said:
You talk as if the vast majority of the electorate are going to be following the legal nuances of this in detail. They wont.IanB2 said:
Lord (Paddy) Ashdown's position on today's Any Questions suggests that it wouldn't. If the LibDems are wary of painting themselves into the 'anti-democracy' corner, how much more painful will it be for Labour peers whose supporters in the country are so much more divided on the issue?Alanbrooke said:
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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.
They'll look at : we had a vote, you are stopping it it's undemocratic, get rid of the bums0 -
Funnily enough, for all the arguments with Chris about past treaties, I hope that the Government loses. I want Parliament to have its say. I am just amused by the hypocrisy of the Europhiles.grabcocque said:
I dunno about you, but I'm discussing one of the most fundamental questions of constitutional importance this country has had in a long while.tyson said:Blinking heckers...trying to wade through all this legal twaddle to try and find some nuggets on the US election is hard going. I'm mean FFS...it's the Saturday before the biggest betting night in politics ever...
TSE....can you not just create some kind of junk folder where all these endless and boring legal posts go. To think there could well be years of this to come,,,and those talking about bloody trade deals too. Oh gawd......
The Supreme Court is convening the full court *for the first time in its history* to hear the government's appeal. This is clearly, in the minds of some of the finest legal minds in the country, a question of some serious political and legal importance.
If you don't like it just shit off you tedious old bumtrump.0 -
I think that is clearly the case with the exception of emergencies, self defence and special forces.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.grabcocque said:
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles0 -
A sensible 'people' would be better advised to make you the first accused. Revolutionary environments simply cannot cope with people who are on one side, then on the other, according to mere whim, and their alcohol intake over the preceding hours.SeanT said:It occurs to me that Brexit is a revolutionary act. Literally. It changes everything, and overthrows the present system of government.
We therefore need revolutionary courts, dispensing revolutionary justice. This is what happens when you have revolutions.
I am ready to serve on the people's tribunals.0 -
It is on some levels.SeanT said:It occurs to me that Brexit is a revolutionary act. Literally. It changes everything, and overthrows the present system of government.
We therefore need revolutionary courts, dispensing revolutionary justice. This is what happens when you have revolutions.
I am ready to serve on the people's tribunals.
We're about to effectively repeal 40 odd years of laws in one swoop, that's something that normally happens when a revolution topples a Dictator.0 -
Is the movement towards Clinton at Betfair yesterday and today simply a product of people deciding to back the favourite? There doesn't seem to be any big event that has caused it, unlike previous moves occasioned by
* Clinton's near-collapse (C->T)
* her win in the first debate (T->C)
* the P*ssygate and second debate combo (T->C), and
* Comey's letter (C->T).0 -
How many of the Lords actually want reform?Alanbrooke said:
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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.
At least on a partisan level the Lib Dems want Lords Reform and want to block Brexit. Will the Lib Dem lords view the threat of Lords Reform as a potent threat?0 -
We're not repealing it. Despite the grandiose name we're just grandfathering the entire acquis into UK law.TheScreamingEagles said:
It is on some levels.SeanT said:It occurs to me that Brexit is a revolutionary act. Literally. It changes everything, and overthrows the present system of government.
We therefore need revolutionary courts, dispensing revolutionary justice. This is what happens when you have revolutions.
I am ready to serve on the people's tribunals.
We're about to effectively repeal 40 odd years of laws in one swoop, that's something that normally happens when a revolution topples a Dictator.0 -
To say it yet again. Signing a treaty has no legal effect. Ratification is what counts. If a treaty - such as an EU treaty - requires primary legislation, it is not ratified until that legislation passes. It cannot take effect until it has been ratified by all the parties. It cannot be ratified if parliament refuses to pass the necessary legislation.Richard_Tyndall said:
A court challenge could have derailed the ratification. A challenge by Parliament could not.Philip_Thompson said:
Though the ECJ only applies once its been ratified by all states which only happened in the UK on 16 July 2008.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
So you're saying if the Maastricht Rebels had won, or for Lisbon if there'd been a rebellion that demanded a referendum (which then failed) then we'd have still been considered to have ratified the Treaty?
To quote from the very opening paragraph of the document Chris is relying upon :
"According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown. Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them"
Parliament voting to deny provision does not change the fact that we have signed and ratified the treaty. It just means that we end up in breach of its terms.
Chris is simply wrong.
You must understand that by now. If you can't admit you were wrong, it would be better just to let it drop silently.0 -
Take the first Gulf war.DavidL said:
I think that is clearly the case with the exception of emergencies, self defence and special forces.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.grabcocque said:
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
Would we have needed a vote to send troops to defend Saudi Arabia?
If not, would we need only a vote once Desert Shield turned in Desert Storm?0 -
That sounds grandiose, but it's only about 10 years old!grabcocque said:
I dunno about you, but I'm discussing one of the most fundamental questions of constitutional importance this country has had in a long while.tyson said:Blinking heckers...trying to wade through all this legal twaddle to try and find some nuggets on the US election is hard going. I'm mean FFS...it's the Saturday before the biggest betting night in politics ever...
TSE....can you not just create some kind of junk folder where all these endless and boring legal posts go. To think there could well be years of this to come,,,and those talking about bloody trade deals too. Oh gawd......
The Supreme Court is convening the full court *for the first time in its history* to hear the government's appeal. This is clearly, in the minds of some of the finest legal minds in the country, a question of some serious political and legal importance.
If you don't like it just shit off you tedious old bumtrump.0 -
If you understood the point I was making, it's dont get hung up on the PB bubble.IanB2 said:
Fine - but I enjoy this site because it offers (at least the illusion of) discussion at a rather higher and better informed level than that.Alanbrooke said:
You talk as if the vast majority of the electorate are going to be following the legal nuances of this in detail. They wont.IanB2 said:
Lord (Paddy) Ashdown's position on today's Any Questions suggests that it wouldn't. If the LibDems are wary of painting themselves into the 'anti-democracy' corner, how much more painful will it be for Labour peers whose supporters in the country are so much more divided on the issue?Alanbrooke said:
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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.
They'll look at : we had a vote, you are stopping it it's undemocratic, get rid of the bums
The reason so many people on here were caught horribly wrong by Brexit is because not enough of us spend our time watching X factor or living off McDonalds. It's one of the reasons the "metropolitans" think everyone takes their view when quite frankly huge chunks of the country do anything but.
On PB we debate things to death, most people dont spend more than a nano second thinking of politics. They're normal, we're not and normal people outnumber geeks.0 -
But then repealing the bits the U.K. decides it doesn't want.grabcocque said:
We're not repealing it. Despite the grandiose name we're just grandfathering the entire acquis into UK law.TheScreamingEagles said:
It is on some levels.SeanT said:It occurs to me that Brexit is a revolutionary act. Literally. It changes everything, and overthrows the present system of government.
We therefore need revolutionary courts, dispensing revolutionary justice. This is what happens when you have revolutions.
I am ready to serve on the people's tribunals.
We're about to effectively repeal 40 odd years of laws in one swoop, that's something that normally happens when a revolution topples a Dictator.0 -
Yes that is probably a better example. Either way there is more uncertainty which is not good for business.NickPalmer said:
I was thinking about amendments, but they're non-trivial. "The Government shall seek membership of the Customs Union", for instance, is not something you can put a law (and if you did, the Government would say "OK, we sought it, but couldn't get it, oh well"). The most effective amendment I can think of at the moment would be "Once an agreement has been reached as envisaged by article 50, the Government shall consult the people in a further referendum before implementing the agreement". Technically that would lead to a choice of "bad deal or no deal", but in reality rejection of the deal would lead to one of the EU's famous clock-stopping exercises while everyone considered the best way forward.DavidL said:
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.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 -
Yes, it can deny the provision of the changes in UK law. I think Richard's point is we would have still ratified the treaty.Scott_P said:
From you own quoteRichard_Tyndall said:
To quote from the very opening paragraph of the document Chris is relying upon :
"According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown. Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them"
Parliament voting to deny provision does not change the fact that we have signed and ratified the treaty. It just means that we end up in breach of its terms.
Chris is simply wrong.
Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision
Parliament can deny the treaty
Oh dear...
You are wrong0 -
When decisions are made according to who holds a credit account in your personal record of favours-given-and-received. Anyone in Italy who has tried to apply for anything from their local government will be familiar with the concept. Exaggerating only slightly, the key decision criteria is whether or not you sent them a gift the preceding Christmas.Dromedary said:
You've lost me there. At what point does keeping a personal register of favours start undermining objective truth?IanB2 said:It takes a bit of time scratching beneath the surface to see that Italians are the most neurotic, conformist, small-c conservative people, whose lives are dominated by fear of what everyone else thinks in a way that resembles the Middle East more than Europe, where everyone keeps a personal register of favours given and received to the point where objective truth is merely an amusing subject for late night discussion, at best.
Edit/ consider - we Brits are generally wary of verbal promises and would rather see something written down. The Italian is precisely the opposite - the words on paper are just a bit of ink; what matters is whether someone has made a personal commitment to your face.0
