politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May loses her battle to be able to invoke Article 50 w

Alanbrooke said:

I assume we've all forgotten about missiles now ?

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it

Hands up who saw that coming...

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.

The complaint is more correctly that Scotland is not the senior partner in the UK.

Probably better then if Unionist politicians stopped stating that Scotland is an equal partner.

Unless you're suggesting that they don't really mean it?!

philiph said:

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it

Hands up who saw that coming...

Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.

TOPPING said:

philiph said:

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it

Hands up who saw that coming...

Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.

What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it

Hands up who saw that coming...

That's quite clever from Chuka,

philiph said:

TOPPING said:

philiph said:

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it

Hands up who saw that coming...

Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.

What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?

The lies from all sides of the campaign were equally egregious.

Should voters not recognise electioneering clap trap. exaggeration and 1/4 truths by now, there is little help for them.

nunu said:

Sean_F said:

nunu said:

I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.

The government would be unlikely to accept such an amendment. Ultimately, if the Lords do try to block the exercise of A.50, the government can either use the Parliament Act to push through the Bill, or create sufficient Peers to vote it through.

can they use the Parliament Act for this? I think their could be a fight in the courts over that..........

CarlottaVance said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it

Hands up who saw that coming...

That's quite clever from Chuka,

Not something you read often.

And if 'cheap political stunts' are how one of Labour's 'bright hopes for the future' aims to deal with the major challenge of our days then perhaps a tad over generous?

Alanbrooke said:

philiph said:

TOPPING said:

philiph said:

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it

Hands up who saw that coming...

Clever arse Chukka may find that the mass of voters see this as a wheeze, just playing politics. This could well lead to a further diminution of the respect Labour in particular and political elites in general are held.

What was the more egregious wheeze? Chuka's idea, or the pledge to give the NHS £350m per week?

The lies from all sides of the campaign were equally egregious.

Should voters not recognise electioneering clap trap. exaggeration and 1/4 truths by now, there is little help for them.

Ah yes, but leavers are thick and easily led, whereas remainers are really clever and have firm principles.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCsarahsmith: Nicola Sturgeon says it is becoming clearer that Scotland may choose to take future into its own hands. i.e. indyref2 becoming more likely

That is her daily mantra but in reality she has nowhere to go at present

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I bet Scottish Unionists Leavers must be feeling sicker than a cyclist with piles this morning.

Sturgeon won't call a vote. It's too risky. Is my strong suspicion. If she does, TMay will forbid it on the grounds that We're negotiating Brexit, and can't have two/three/multiple negotiations at once. TMay said as much in her Conference Speech.

So Sturgeon may call it, in the firm and justified belief that TMay will knock it back.

To put it another way, this is a game of bluff and double bluff, and the chances of an indyref before Brexit are slim. After Brexit, who knows.

My advice to the SNP is a vote with the following question:

"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"

If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.

SNP doesn't set the question

TOPPING said:

What is it with Brexiteers that every time they write something on here they manage to fuck up the quote system? Doesn't give me great hope for the future tbh.

On topic, I am very happy with, not to say proud of the UK today.

For those simpletons who don't or didn't or chose not to understand just what the SC opined upon, well it must be a great to have such a simple life.

Dromedary said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.

The complaint is more correctly that Scotland is not the senior partner in the UK.

Probably better then if Unionist politicians stopped stating that Scotland is an equal partner.

Unless you're suggesting that they don't really mean it?!

An equal or unequal partner with whom? Where is the English government?

Alistair said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCsarahsmith: Nicola Sturgeon says it is becoming clearer that Scotland may choose to take future into its own hands. i.e. indyref2 becoming more likely

That is her daily mantra but in reality she has nowhere to go at present

There is a path that Sturgeon is following towards the calling of indyRef2.

In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.

Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.

And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes

I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.

Alistair said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I bet Scottish Unionists Leavers must be feeling sicker than a cyclist with piles this morning.

Sturgeon won't call a vote. It's too risky. Is my strong suspicion. If she does, TMay will forbid it on the grounds that We're negotiating Brexit, and can't have two/three/multiple negotiations at once. TMay said as much in her Conference Speech.

So Sturgeon may call it, in the firm and justified belief that TMay will knock it back.

To put it another way, this is a game of bluff and double bluff, and the chances of an indyref before Brexit are slim. After Brexit, who knows.

My advice to the SNP is a vote with the following question:

"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"

If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.

SNP doesn't set the question

They did at the last referendum - although they bowed to suggest from the Electoral Commission they still had final say I believe.

Charles said:

Dromedary said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCPhilipSim: Patrick Harvie says Supreme Court ruling shows Scotland "not an equal partner in the UK"; now "hard to see any other option" than indyref2.

The complaint is more correctly that Scotland is not the senior partner in the UK.

Probably better then if Unionist politicians stopped stating that Scotland is an equal partner.

Unless you're suggesting that they don't really mean it?!

An equal or unequal partner with whom? Where is the English government?

It's fair to say that the Scottish government has just as much power over foreign affairs as the English government

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Don't you think she should start governing Scotland instead of a daily mantra on Independence

Don't you think Theresa May should start governing the UK instead of devoting all her energy to the folly of Brexit?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alistair said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCsarahsmith: Nicola Sturgeon says it is becoming clearer that Scotland may choose to take future into its own hands. i.e. indyref2 becoming more likely

That is her daily mantra but in reality she has nowhere to go at present

There is a path that Sturgeon is following towards the calling of indyRef2.

In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.

Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.

And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes

I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.

Don't you think she should start governing Scotland instead of a daily mantra on Independence

Charles said:

Alistair said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I bet Scottish Unionists Leavers must be feeling sicker than a cyclist with piles this morning.

Sturgeon won't call a vote. It's too risky. Is my strong suspicion. If she does, TMay will forbid it on the grounds that We're negotiating Brexit, and can't have two/three/multiple negotiations at once. TMay said as much in her Conference Speech.

So Sturgeon may call it, in the firm and justified belief that TMay will knock it back.

To put it another way, this is a game of bluff and double bluff, and the chances of an indyref before Brexit are slim. After Brexit, who knows.

My advice to the SNP is a vote with the following question:

"Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union as an independent member state?"

If they win, it's a mandate to go to Brussels and salvage continuity membership out of the A50 process. If Brussels doesn't play ball, then they haven't lost anything and will default to staying in the UK.

SNP doesn't set the question

They did at the last referendum - although they bowed to suggest from the Electoral Commission they still had final say I believe.

It was negotiated with Cameron as part of the broader package of arrangements for the referendum.

You might say that they were 'equal partners' in setting the question

SeanT said:

NewsTaker said:

Casino_Royale said:

philiph said:

So who can appeal this SC ruling?

Ant to whom would an appeal go?

Would an appeal delay an act in parliament?

In theory someone could appeal to the ECHR or ECJ on the basis that leaving the EU breached their human rights.
But I don't think that will happen.

Why not? To my mind it seems inevitable given the attitude of the hard core remainers.

It would have no effect on Brexit, as we would be leaving, and the ECJ will cease to have power over us. To allow the ECJ to stop Brexit would be a constitutional absurdity, as well as an outrage - admitting that the EU is a prison you can never leave. Won't happen.

The only case you could plausibly bring before the ECJ is on the revocability of A50 or not, as the ECJ is the guardian of the Treaties (and therefore of A50). I can quite easily see a Brit Remoaner making that appeal. Indeed it's probable.

SeanT said:

Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.

Scott_P said:

Don't read it, Mark...

https://twitter.com/nickcohen4/status/823859220001030146

david_herdson said:

They can use the Parliament Act but not until next year. There has to be a 12 month gap, which obviously screws up the March timetable (and, more seriously, would run dangerously close to the 2020GE for the final Brexit date).

AlastairMeeks said:

Who would have thought that @PlatoSaid would be mindlessly retweeting pro-Trump fake news?

Sean_F said:

not_on_fire said:

Sean_F said:

nunu said:

I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.

The government would be unlikely to accept such an amendment. Ultimately, if the Lords do try to block the exercise of A.50, the government can either use the Parliament Act to push through the Bill, or create sufficient Peers to vote it through.

Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.

As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"

The maximum period that the Lords could delay passage of the Bill is 12 months.

As to new peers, the Queen might want the issue to be tested in a general election, but if the voters returned the Conservatives to office, she would create the peers.

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PlatoSaid said:

Very awkward

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/organizer-dc-womens-march-trump-pictured-flashing-isis-sign/

Not really

Clearly the actions of an ISIS supporter

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/635589552414027776?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-womens-march-attacked-online_us_58865134e4b0e3a7356adbb2

It's pretty disgusting that people would smear someone like this.

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

not_on_fire said:

Sean_F said:

nunu said:

I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.

The government would be unlikely to accept such an amendment. Ultimately, if the Lords do try to block the exercise of A.50, the government can either use the Parliament Act to push through the Bill, or create sufficient Peers to vote it through.

Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.

As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"

The maximum period that the Lords could delay passage of the Bill is 12 months.

As to new peers, the Queen might want the issue to be tested in a general election, but if the voters returned the Conservatives to office, she would create the peers.

This was one of the biggest arguments against the FTPA removing the Crown's prerogative power to dissolve parliament. Genuine crises can't necessarily be resolved now with an appeal to the people to decide one way or the other and with the Crown having the power to impose that solution if necessary. An early dissolution now requires parliament's consent, one way or another.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.

But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.

nunu said:

I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.

Carolus_Rex said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

not_on_fire said:

Sean_F said:

nunu said:

I think this ruling means it is unlikely freedom of movement is ended. The HoL will introduce an amendment that states Article 50 can only be revoked if the right of Brits to have freedom of movement is kept.

The government would be unlikely to accept such an amendment. Ultimately, if the Lords do try to block the exercise of A.50, the government can either use the Parliament Act to push through the Bill, or create sufficient Peers to vote it through.

Neither of these are realistic options. Using the Parliament act would require waiting for 2 years, which would mean the A59 negotiations would span a General Election.

As for appointing new peers, the Queen would not allow herself to be politicised by appointing all the new peers, and it would make a mockery of "cutting the costs of Parliament"

The maximum period that the Lords could delay passage of the Bill is 12 months.

As to new peers, the Queen might want the issue to be tested in a general election, but if the voters returned the Conservatives to office, she would create the peers.

This was one of the biggest arguments against the FTPA removing the Crown's prerogative power to dissolve parliament. Genuine crises can't necessarily be resolved now with an appeal to the people to decide one way or the other and with the Crown having the power to impose that solution if necessary. An early dissolution now requires parliament's consent, one way or another.

Is there any chance of the FTPA being repealed? I suppose it's case of turkeys and Christmas?

SeanT said:

not_on_fire said:

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PlatoSaid said:

Very awkward

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/organizer-dc-womens-march-trump-pictured-flashing-isis-sign/

Not really

Clearly the actions of an ISIS supporter

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/635589552414027776?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-womens-march-attacked-online_us_58865134e4b0e3a7356adbb2

It's pretty disgusting that people would smear someone like this.

Indeed. When will people learn to stop reposting nonsense such as this, especially sources known to be first-class horse manure?

http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-source/gateway-pundit

Huffington Post is no better, it's just on the other side.

david_herdson said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alistair said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCsarahsmith: Nicola Sturgeon says it is becoming clearer that Scotland may choose to take future into its own hands. i.e. indyref2 becoming more likely

That is her daily mantra but in reality she has nowhere to go at present

There is a path that Sturgeon is following towards the calling of indyRef2.

In my view she is gonig for a strategy of showing that Scotland has no other choice. For this to happen the Brexit must be hard, unfettered Single Market access absolutely ruled out and Scotland having no say.

Whilst May says Brexit means Brexit until the good ship Britania is locked on course to NoSingleMarketLand Sturgeon hasn't had her preconditions met.

And that's the gamble she has taken - she has made it clear that Single Market Access means no IndyRef2 - it's a soft goal. Her estimation is only by showing Scotland is powerless in the UK can she tip enough voters from No-to-Yes

I don't necessarily agree with her strategy but it is incredibly clear and boringly methodical to the extent that I can't understand why people are confused by it.

Don't you think she should start governing Scotland instead of a daily mantra on Independence

The SNP doesn't want to govern Scotland, they want to leave that to Brussels/Berlin.

No, no: Scotland will be an equal partner with Germany in the EU.

MonikerDiCanio said:

SeanT said:

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.

It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.

Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.

Wrong. YES in indyref 2 in 2018 means the same currency conundrum (if not worse, as the euro would be off the menu til you rejoined the EU), plus you'd be out of the EU Single Market (til you rejoined) AND you'd be out of the UK Single Market forever (so suddenly tariffs at Berwick are a reality) and would there be Free Movement with England? You can't say for sure, because Brexit won't have concluded, so you won't know what deal rUK will have agreed with the EU, and on and on and on. It's endless.

And there's no guarantee of speedy EU re-entry after indyref. Spain would make you wait til Brexit was done. Legally, when would that be? 2019? There might be legal difficulties around the trading relationship til the 2020s. There might (probably will be) a transitonal deal of 2-3 years? 5? So maybe you couldn't rejoin the EU til 2023?

In the intervening years Scotland would be in total limbo.

Brexit introduces a whole new mega-dimension of chaos on all Scottish sides, indeed I'd say Brexit makes an indyref before we have Brexited a political and maybe legal impossibility.

Another Indyref might well trigger a process of Balkanization in Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lowlands returning to England, Shetland and Orkney rejoining Norway , with the Picts fighting the Celts over what's left.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.

But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.

Carolus_Rex said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.

But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.

Business people who get involved in this sort of thing are fools too. You can go away for a long time for money laundering. And of course given the nature of the people you are dealing with you can risk a lot more than that.

SeanT said:

not_on_fire said:

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PlatoSaid said:

Very awkward

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/organizer-dc-womens-march-trump-pictured-flashing-isis-sign/

Not really

Clearly the actions of an ISIS supporter

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/635589552414027776?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-womens-march-attacked-online_us_58865134e4b0e3a7356adbb2

It's pretty disgusting that people would smear someone like this.

Indeed. When will people learn to stop reposting nonsense such as this, especially sources known to be first-class horse manure?

http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-source/gateway-pundit

Huffington Post is no better, it's just on the other side.

SimonStClare said:

Gallowgate said:

Maybe its time England & Wales go forward alone... I'm tired of Scotland trying to dominate everything.

If it is the wish of the people of Scotland to leave the UK, then so be it. Trouble is there never seems to be enough of them to win a referendum. – Third time lucky, perhaps…!

Theuniondivvie said:

Pulpstar said:

@TheUnionDivvie

If England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all "equal" partners then the English voter must simply put be worth alot less than the other nations.

What intellectually bankrupt balderdash 'Better Together' came out with during the Ref.

I don't think England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are equal partners. However Unionist politicians then and now are happy to peddle the lie that we are in the hope that those nasty Nats will just go away and stop putting ideas into good British folk's heads.

rkrkrk said:

SeanT said:

not_on_fire said:

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

PlatoSaid said:

Very awkward

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/organizer-dc-womens-march-trump-pictured-flashing-isis-sign/

Not really

Clearly the actions of an ISIS supporter

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/635589552414027776?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-womens-march-attacked-online_us_58865134e4b0e3a7356adbb2

It's pretty disgusting that people would smear someone like this.

Indeed. When will people learn to stop reposting nonsense such as this, especially sources known to be first-class horse manure?

http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-source/gateway-pundit

Huffington Post is no better, it's just on the other side.

There's a difference between lying and having a political viewpoint.

Sean_F said:

Carolus_Rex said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Page 16 in today's Times reports how someone lost £90,000 when an online dating "friend" wanted help with recovering £15.5 million trapped in a safe deposit box in Amsterdam. The mind boggles at how people are taken in by these scams.

Some of these scams are actually "genuine" ie dishonest people are looking for assistance in laundering money. Some business people do go into this with their eyes open, and while losing money to con artists, gain a lot more from assisting the genuine money launderers.

But, ordinary members of the public who get involved in such scams are fools. Minnows should never swim with sharks.

Business people who get involved in this sort of thing are fools too. You can go away for a long time for money laundering. And of course given the nature of the people you are dealing with you can risk a lot more than that.

I certainly wouldn't recommend becoming a money launderer, but there are people who make a lot of money out of it, and are able to cover their tracks.

But, your last point is quite true. I read a real horror story about a Scottish accountant who laundered money for criminals. She got greedy and stole from them. She was found dead sitting on a chair in a warehouse, with her feet *nailed* to the floor.

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

SeanT said:

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

Indyref 2 in parallel with Brexit negotiations would also be a political nightmare for all Scottish parties, including the SNP, as the YES or NO campaigns would not yet know the future shape of Brexit Britain and the pros and cons of staying in that future UK.

It would be mana from heaven for the SNP. In the previous IndyRef No was a vote for the safe, sure, stable option.

Ongoing Brexit negotiations would make No a dangerous, uncertain, unknown vote.

Wrong. YES in indyref 2 in 2018 means the same currency conundrum (if not worse, as the euro would be off the menu til you rejoined the EU), plus you'd be out of the EU Single Market (til you rejoined) AND you'd be out of the UK Single Market forever (so suddenly tariffs at Berwick are a reality) and would there be Free Movement with England? You can't say for sure, because Brexit won't have concluded, so you won't know what deal rUK will have agreed with the EU, and on and on and on. It's endless.

And there's no guarantee of speedy EU re-entry after indyref. Spain would make you wait til Brexit was done. Legally, when would that be? 2019? There might be legal difficulties around the trading relationship til the 2020s. There might (probably will be) a transitonal deal of 2-3 years? 5? So maybe you couldn't rejoin the EU til 2023?

In the intervening years Scotland would be in total limbo.

Brexit introduces a whole new mega-dimension of chaos on all Scottish sides, indeed I'd say Brexit makes an indyref before we have Brexited a political and maybe legal impossibility.

Another Indyref might well trigger a process of Balkanization in Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lowlands returning to England, Shetland and Orkney rejoining Norway , with the Picts fighting the Celts over what's left.

It is Brexit that has triggered the process of Balkanisation in the UK.

And if Remain had won by a tiny majority, with Scotland's Remain vote being enough to overrule a narrow Leave vote in England and Wales? Now that really could have caused the break-up of the UK.