politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five months after the vote and BREXIT is as decisive an issue
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five months after the vote and BREXIT is as decisive an issue as ever
"undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper={}),window.datawrapper["paNvw"]={},window.datawrapper["paNvw"].embedDeltas={"100":880.8,"200":708.8,"300":653.8,"400":626.8,"500":599.8,"600":599.8,"700":599.8,"800":599.8,"900":599.8,"1000":572.8},window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-paNvw"),window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["paNvw"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])"paNvw"==b&&(window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px")});
Comments
-
Frit, like Pence0
-
Second like Zac
Surely there is a typo in this thread title, "divisive" is what was meant?0 -
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
0 -
How does an audience apologise? Does the FBI track them down and ask for individual 'sorry for being rude' notes?felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
0 -
FPT:Luckyguy1983 said:
At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.FF43 said:Dromedary said:
How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?FF43 said:I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.
Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.0 -
Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.0 -
Was that lifted from 'Russia Today'?Luckyguy1983 said:FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:
At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.FF43 said:Dromedary said:
How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?FF43 said:I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.
Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.0 -
Not much Regrexit here...0
-
0
-
I'd have hoped the actor who called Pence back at the end to lecture him might have apologised on their behalf. A theatre is a public place and people have free speech but Pence was attending as a private citizen I believe. In the end it's all about taste.Theuniondivvie said:
How does an audience apologise? Does the FBI track them down and ask for individual 'sorry for being rude' notes?felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
0 -
Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.OUT said:
Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.0 -
Tory splits widening.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/
Good job Cameron lanced the boil.0 -
Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.
But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.
Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.
0 -
But Big Daddy Trump has.felix said:
Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.OUT said:
Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.0 -
Some PBers may find this interesting
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html0 -
fpt:Nonsense from start to finish.
The Patriot Act is no longer in place, and no one in Congress is going to vote for something similar ever again.
So Speedy, there are no emergency powers the President could use to suspend rights then?0 -
I think we can all agree now that the EU was a concern for a great number of people afterall..!0
-
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. Hopkins, indeed. I'll believe we're leaving when we've left.0 -
Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.Theuniondivvie said:
But Big Daddy Trump has.felix said:
Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.OUT said:
Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.0 -
Don't disagree - but people's lives are being affected adversely by the continued in-fighting on both sides and while the extremists continue to play their silly games this can only get worse.Jonathan said:Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.
But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.
Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.0 -
There is a time and a place to protest and it is not in a theatre.felix said:
Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.Theuniondivvie said:
But Big Daddy Trump has.felix said:
Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.OUT said:
Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.0 -
Speaking medically, when you lance a boil the pus runs out!Bromptonaut said:Tory splits widening.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/
Good job Cameron lanced the boil.0 -
Dr Evadne Hinge is reborn and walks among us!felix said:
Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.Theuniondivvie said:
But Big Daddy Trump has.felix said:
Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.OUT said:
Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.0 -
This is true, partly because of inane soundbites like "brexit is brexit", and the attitude that "we're doing it for good or ill".Jonathan said:Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.
But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.
Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.
Although in some ways it's good to have a brexit sceptic as PM (Since there are different kinds of brexiters, a brexiter PM would be involved in a power struggle; and May will, one would imagine, seek to retain the benefits of EU membership) it's hardly satisfying for anyone to see a major policy being implemented by someone who doesn't believe it's in the best interests of the country, i.e. by someone whose heart is not in it.0 -
Sic Semper Tyrannis.MP_SE said:
There is a time and a place to protest and it is not in a theatre.felix said:
Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.Theuniondivvie said:
But Big Daddy Trump has.felix said:
Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.OUT said:
Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.0 -
I'll Bracket [sic] that comment as a compliment.Theuniondivvie said:
Dr Evadne Hinge is reborn and walks among us!felix said:
Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.Theuniondivvie said:
But Big Daddy Trump has.felix said:
Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.OUT said:
Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.felix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.0 -
It's divisive but is it decisive? For years OGH and the pollsters told us that the EU was way down the list of voter priorities. Has that changed?0
-
But it's meant to start the healing process. Whereas...foxinsoxuk said:
Speaking medically, when you lance a boil the pus runs out!Bromptonaut said:Tory splits widening.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/
Good job Cameron lanced the boil.0 -
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.0 -
13% of Remainers are no longer sure that leaving was wrong or are now certain that leaving was right.
It's only 8% of Leavers who have changed their minds or who have expressed doubts about leaving.
That would point to a bigger Leave win in a re-run any time soon.
One in eight Remainers seem to have decided that project fear was project bullshit.0 -
And because so many here lurve him, here's the TMZ intv with Trump. Filmed back in September but not broadcast until now. Hillary refused to do one hence the delay.
https://youtu.be/qi1df15VmCs0 -
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.rcs1000 said:
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.0 -
Mr. Glenn, this has shades of iconoclasts and iconodules.0
-
I've come to the conclusion that if Brexit goes to a Commons vote then it will be scuppered - by the 60 hardcore Tory Leavers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/
It's bound to happen. There'll be a least one EU agreement that May wants to retain, but which the hardcores will denounce as a sneaky betrayal and EU membership in all but name. If it stops Brexit then so be it - it'll be the government's/Leavers' fault for being duplicitous.0 -
Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.0 -
"Article 50 is revocable"williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.rcs1000 said:
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
Proof please.
0 -
Proof that it isn't?MarkHopkins said:
"Article 50 is revocable"williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.rcs1000 said:
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
Proof please.0 -
Mr. Glenn, proof there isn't a giant chocolate teapot orbiting the Earth?
0 -
Extending the negotiations requires unanimity. Revoking the notification is purely in the UK's gift.viewcode said:
Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.0 -
williamglenn said:
Proof that it isn't?MarkHopkins said:
"Article 50 is revocable"williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.rcs1000 said:
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
Proof please.
You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?
0 -
Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played0 -
https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
Proof that it isn't?MarkHopkins said:
"Article 50 is revocable"williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.rcs1000 said:
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
Proof please.
You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?0 -
"Requesting it be reversed/ignored" is in the UK's gift. "Revoked" is not in the UK's gift. "Revoked" has the assumption of inevitability. If you had gone for "not inevitable" I'd've agreed with you, although I would have insisted you added the rider "...provided the other countries agreed"williamglenn said:
Extending the negotiations requires unanimity. Revoking the notification is purely in the UK's gift.viewcode said:
Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.
0 -
williamglenn said:
https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
Proof that it isn't?MarkHopkins said:
"Article 50 is revocable"williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.rcs1000 said:
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
Proof please.
You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?
If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
Which implies it is not revocable.
0 -
Non-sequitorMarkHopkins said:If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.
That doesn't mean you can't revoke0 -
It implies merely that it is badly drafted, which it is.MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
Proof that it isn't?MarkHopkins said:
"Article 50 is revocable"williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.rcs1000 said:
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
Proof please.
You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?
If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
Which implies it is not revocable.0 -
Is there any discussion in the treaty itself that it can be revoked?0
-
The truth is obscure as the treaty makes no mention of it. The matter can only be resolved definitively by the ECJ. The issue is a serious one as if A50 is not reversible and the negotiations break down we face a WTO cliff edge in 2019.MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
Proof that it isn't?MarkHopkins said:
"Article 50 is revocable"williamglenn said:
Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.rcs1000 said:
The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.MarkHopkins said:
Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.
Proof please.
You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?
If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
Which implies it is not revocable.0 -
It sure ain't DEVISIVE as above cos it ain't a wordpartypoliticalorphan said:It's divisive but is it decisive? For years OGH and the pollsters told us that the EU was way down the list of voter priorities. Has that changed?
0 -
Some of the 'Ultras' really are that stupid but I don't think they'll do it in the end.Stark_Dawning said:I've come to the conclusion that if Brexit goes to a Commons vote then it will be scuppered - by the 60 hardcore Tory Leavers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/
It's bound to happen. There'll be a least one EU agreement that May wants to retain, but which the hardcores will denounce as a sneaky betrayal and EU membership in all but name. If it stops Brexit then so be it - it'll be the government's/Leavers' fault for being duplicitous.0 -
A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.MarkHopkins said:Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....0 -
Isn't each party pushing their own interpretation of the vote?PClipp said:
A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.MarkHopkins said:Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....0 -
It implies it. Otherwise you just revoke and resubmit to get an unilateral extensionScott_P said:
Non-sequitorMarkHopkins said:If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.
That doesn't mean you can't revoke0 -
Scott_P said:
Non-sequitorMarkHopkins said:If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.
That doesn't mean you can't revoke
There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.
My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.
It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.
EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.
0 -
I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
Non-sequitorMarkHopkins said:If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.
That doesn't mean you can't revoke
There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.
My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.
It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.
EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.
0 -
You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.Charles said:
I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
Non-sequitorMarkHopkins said:If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.
That doesn't mean you can't revoke
There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.
My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.
It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.
EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.0 -
Of course, Mr D. Which is why it was a stupid question.RobD said:
Isn't each party pushing their own interpretation of the vote?PClipp said:
A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.MarkHopkins said:Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.
As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....0 -
Michael McDonald @ElectProject 2h2 hours ago
Trump's reported victory margin in Arizona (3.57%) is now less than his margin in North Carolina (3.74%)
0 -
can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit0
-
What are the odds that the govt will back out of taking Brexit to the Supreme Court?
As others have said, including the gang of three Tory remainers this morning, going to the court seems like a political mistake. If instead the govt goes to parliament and asserts its primacy in deciding national matters, Brexit will proceed as a national project with a relatively short delay. Whereas the court will have to make a constitutional decision about which delegated/devolved matter takes precedence: in this case, the Brexit referendum or the Scottish parliament. Potentially this could hold Brexit up by 2 or 3 years.0 -
Safe space, safe spacefelix said:
The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.Theuniondivvie said:Frit, like Pence
0 -
Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?0
-
That's already covered in the extension clause.ReallyEvilMuffin said:
You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.Charles said:
I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
Non-sequitorMarkHopkins said:If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.
That doesn't mean you can't revoke
There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.
My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.
It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.
EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.
If the economic chaos is so severe then the UK is forced to return as a supplicant - they wouldn't want them to have a unilateral right to cancel the process and revert to the status quo.0 -
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.0 -
Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.0 -
How many ways can people try to find to invalidate the result?
The question was straightforward - leave or remain.
0 -
Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.rottenborough said:Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?
0 -
The EU doesn't get a vote; 27 countries do.ReallyEvilMuffin said:
You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.Charles said:
I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
Non-sequitorMarkHopkins said:If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.
If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.
That doesn't mean you can't revoke
There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.
My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.
It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.
EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.0 -
Omfg, he actually demanded it be a safe place, I'd only seen the other tweet.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/7999746352741949470 -
Mr. Chestnut and Mr. Charles, indeed.
Mr. Llama, you might be interested (given your liking for the old cartography) in this post:
http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/writing-blog/the-map-of-denland0 -
Thanks Plato, looks interesting.PlatoSaid said:Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played0 -
I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)RobD said:
Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.-1 -
EU membership is equally a domestic affair.Charles said:
I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)RobD said:
Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.0 -
Does the Scottish Parliament ratify international treaties that have implications in Scotland?williamglenn said:
EU membership is equally a domestic affair.Charles said:
I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)RobD said:
Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.0 -
No, it's a treaty between sovereign stateswilliamglenn said:
EU membership is equally a domestic affair.Charles said:
I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)RobD said:
Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.0 -
how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?rottenborough said:Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?
0 -
To be fair Cameron hasn't needed to do his own spinning for many years.HurstLlama said:
Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.rottenborough said:Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?
There's been no shortage of arselickers willing to do it for him.
What I suspect Cameron has had a shortage of though was people willing to tell him inconvenient truths.
0 -
Scott Adams book "How to Fail at Nearly everything and still win big" is well worth readingAndyJS said:
Thanks Plato, looks interesting.PlatoSaid said:Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played0 -
No sign of that happening.nunu said:
how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?rottenborough said:Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?
0 -
That's right. Didn't he tell the Council of Ministers that he was a winner !HurstLlama said:
Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.rottenborough said:Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?
0 -
Either it goes beyond that, in which case it isn't, or it doesn't, in which case the sovereignty argument for leaving is bogus.Charles said:
No, it's a treaty between sovereign stateswilliamglenn said:
EU membership is equally a domestic affair.Charles said:
I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)RobD said:
Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.0 -
I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.0 -
An appeal to the ECJ just wont happen.surbiton said:
I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.0 -
Some reports from on the ground:
1) HS2 is a divisive issue for the blue rinse brigade. But it is definitely going to happen, Sir Pat said so himself Thursday.
2) Apparently Osborne "would be lynched" by BTL investors, he is enemy numero uno,
3) There is a feeling Lib Dem strength could be being underestimated.
4) Corbyn is seen as a massive asset for the Tories.0 -
No, it doesn't. And no, it isn't.williamglenn said:
Either it goes beyond that, in which case it isn't, or it doesn't, in which case the sovereignty argument for leaving is bogus.Charles said:
No, it's a treaty between sovereign stateswilliamglenn said:
EU membership is equally a domestic affair.Charles said:
I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)RobD said:
Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
The sovereignty argument is more to do with the trajectory of development (ie the EU is on an inevitable path towards a formal union/federation - in my view it either has to integrate further or to fall apart)
There are people who believe that sovereignty shared is sovereignty diminished, but would be more properly described as "freedom of action" diminished as a free state always reserves the right to pull out.0 -
George Cunningham's amendment seemed clever at the time, but really fostered resentment subsequently.nunu said:
how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?rottenborough said:Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?
Once there is a majority vote to leave the EU, our position within the organisation becomes untenable.
0 -
Which ground ?Pulpstar said:Some reports from on the ground:
1) HS2 is a divisive issue for the blue rinse brigade. But it is definitely going to happen, Sir Pat said so himself Thursday.
2) Apparently Osborne "would be lynched" by BTL investors, he is enemy numero uno,
3) There is a feeling Lib Dem strength could be being underestimated.
4) Corbyn is seen as a massive asset for the Tories.
And my opinion of Osborne was just raised a notch.
0 -
And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...surbiton said:
I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
(which is why I said it...)0 -
' The big development this week is that the Scottish and Welsh governments have been joined to the action sparking of the speculation that Nicola Sturgeon could have a veto. '
They'll have as much of a veto as the leaders of any other county council.
0 -
If there were a scenario under which Holyrood could block the UK leaving the EU then England and Wales could have a referendum to leave the UK and then be booted out of the EU.0
-
Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?Charles said:
And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...surbiton said:
I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
(which is why I said it...)0 -
This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.
This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.
Positives for Brexit0 -
Except perhaps Osborne, who told him it was a crazy idea to have an EU referendum and was ignored.another_richard said:
To be fair Cameron hasn't needed to do his own spinning for many years.HurstLlama said:
Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.rottenborough said:Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?
There's been no shortage of arselickers willing to do it for him.
What I suspect Cameron has had a shortage of though was people willing to tell him inconvenient truths.0 -
Less chocolate for the same money? I don't recall the Brexit nutjobs ever telling us this would happen?Big_G_NorthWales said:This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.
This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.
Positives for Brexit0 -
The polling evidence indicates that Scots would not leave the UK to stay in the EU.williamglenn said:
Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?Charles said:
And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...surbiton said:
I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
(which is why I said it...)0 -
He's just sticking up for his special snowflake Mike Pence.Alistair said:Omfg, he actually demanded it be a safe place, I'd only seen the other tweet.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/7999746352741949470 -
I think the reduced size of the packs would be taken into account when calculation the CPI.Big_G_NorthWales said:This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.
This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.
Positives for Brexit
But from what I can see in the supermarkets the price of regular food hasn't changed (if anything tis slightly cheaper than a year ago) whilst it is branded chocolates etc where attempts are being made to increase the profit margins.0 -
Apparently the euro has had it's worst run in years and is expected to reach parity with the dollar next week. Commentators are expecting it to continue it's decline into the year end as the US is expected to increase their interest rates.
Is this a real threat for Europe as some are saying or do they have anything they can do to mitigate the fall0 -
I disagree.williamglenn said:
Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?Charles said:
And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...surbiton said:
I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Charles said:
Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliamentkjohnw said:can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit
It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.
(which is why I said it...)0
