The dissenting judgement linked to this morning throws up another interesting question that some are discussing elsewhere
277. As the foregoing judgments show, this case is capable of stimulating discussion on a number of legally interesting topics. There are also supplementary questions arising out of the legal positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. But, at some risk of over-simplifying, the main question centres on two very well understood constitutional rules, which in this case apparently point in opposite directions. They are these:
Rule 1 the executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of Parliament, nor the common law;
and Rule 2 the making and unmaking of treaties is a matter of foreign relations within the competence of the government.
278. Nobody questions either of these two rules. Mrs Miller relies on the first. The government relies on the second. The government contends that Rule 2 operates to recognise its power, as the handler of foreign relations, to unmake the European Treaties. Mrs Miller contends that Rule 1 shows that the power to handle foreign relations stops short at the point where UK statute law is changed.
We know now that in the case of leaving the EU, the majority opinion is that Rule 1 takes precedence over Rule 2, but what about future Parliaments and rejoining?
This would seem to suggest that a future executive could sign a treaty rejoining the EU with neither a plebiscite or a vote in Parliament...
I believe that is indeed still the case. My understanding is that no one has challenged the Royal Prerogative where it relates to the making of Treaties. This ruling was very specifically about the role of Parliament regarding the revoking of the 1972 Act.
That said of course any executive who tried it would probably find itself out of power very very quickly.
Been at a gay wedding today, 2 women, one of them my wife's best friend since school. Moving and delightful, I find it completely mysterious that anyone would want to stand in the way of such an affirmation of love and commitment.
On Brexit I am mildly irritated that there is a risk that the period of uncertainty endured since 24th June will continue somewhat longer but I find it hard not to be pretty mellow about it at the moment.
Serious question: If I as a religous person didn't belive in sex outside marriage ( and therefore against gay sex)
You could easily reconcile those positions by supporting gay marriage?
Not if my religion says marriage is only between a man and woman.
I think your viewpoint is entirely acceptable. It's what you believe. You are free to believe what you like. You may lose friends or be slightly ostracised by liberal metrosexuals, but then we all do this social arithmetic every day: I long ago realised my pretty wild and bohemian life excluded me from certain jobs or careers (like politics!) , and would offend many others, but that was my choice.
Again, what is not right is seeking to impose your views on others, especially via the non democratic diktat of religion, and religious law, and even more if that religious law is inherently bigoted and hateful, which - sorry - I believe sharia law is, towards women.
You start banging on about sharia, then you cross the line. That's when you should leave the country, and go back to Saudi, as the Dutch prime minister put it today.
We are enlightened western nations. We do freedom and equality.
I agree there can only be one law of the land, all must abide by it. End of, no discussion.
We do have the right to peacefully and democratically change the law, including laws anathema to historic British views, including laws on homosexuality, female emancipification and blood sports. All these have changed in my lifetime, and I am sure that further changes to accepted norms will occur over time. It is how societies evolve.
I am completely relaxed about gay marriage. My only grievance about my friends gay marriages is that they seem to be too smug! but Facebook is a great deciever in these things...
That said of course any executive who tried it would probably find itself out of power very very quickly.
FTPA...
Would not stop a Government being brought down by a vote of no confidence in Parliament. Besides I suspect that particular act will be history almost as quickly as British membership of the EU. You are clutching at straws.
Brexit still a monumental waste of time and effort that solves precisely none of the problems we face.
Apart from that, all good.
Very true .Be nice to know by the leave converts on here what problems it will resolve.
THE PROBLEM OF BEING IN A HIDEOUSLY NON-DEMOCRATIC, FRAUDULENT, FLATULENT, ELITIST, EURO-CREATING, COUNTRY-IMPOVERISHING, REFERENDUM-IGNORING MEGA-BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE OF SHITE IN A BUCKET.
That's the problem Brexit will resolve. That's the glitch we seek to mend.
Ah. Westminster being the answer? Give me a break. No change. Especially on the flatulence.
Might need to try again. By resorting to caps do early on you've really left yourself nowhere to go.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
And what would be the alternative option in the referendum?
"Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind and I've got some opinions which you should know. And you'll have to pay for them."
Writes in the same paper as Sean Thomas...
Indeed. Which is what makes it a great paper.
Here's a test: try saying "Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or "Hello, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or any variation thereof, and see if you can avoid sounding like a Total C*nt.
I reckon it's impossible. The absolute c*ntishness of the name will always shine through.
Yes but the zenith and acme of his c*ntishness is not in his name but in the eye-popping fact that he thinks that "doesn't know what post-modern means" is an insult, and a barrier to having the right to a vote.
Well to go all Confucian on yo 'ass, a people who are scared are easily governable. We have seen that of course with how New Lab pushed through any number of anti-freedom type laws.
Who benefits from minimising the Islamic angle vs who would benefit from a population who is happy for the government to increase its own powers in the name of anti-terrorism?
Good question. Who benefited in Rotherham? Labour. They got a client Pakistani vote and avoided hideous controversy
Who benefits across Europe? I'd say the entire postwar Liberal establishment, which is responsible for mass immigration and multiculturalism, and is fearful of the backlash if these policies are seen to be disastrous (which I think they are)
Indeed they already see a backlash in Wilders and Le Pen, so they close ranks even more
I KNOW all this from my lefty liberal friend who now works for the German BBC. He says they simply suppress stories that might be seen as anti-migrant. They don't run them
And he's a classic Guardian type. Still hates Tories.
This shit is real.
Ironically, the whole doctrine of multiculturalism that has been implicit policy for many years is based on a prejudice - literally a pre judgement - That people who move to a liberal society will themselves turn liberal. If that doesn't work, multiculturalism fails. And it doesn't work. And the establishment in the broadest sense - like the leaders of our main political parties - don't know what the hell to do and don't want us to discuss it.
It's probably a general truth that in modern society , "liberal" prejudice messes up as many lives as the old-fashioned right wing sort.
"Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind and I've got some opinions which you should know. And you'll have to pay for them."
Writes in the same paper as Sean Thomas...
Indeed. Which is what makes it a great paper.
Here's a test: try saying "Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or "Hello, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or any variation thereof, and see if you can avoid sounding like a Total C*nt.
I reckon it's impossible. The absolute c*ntishness of the name will always shine through.
Yes but the zenith and acme of his c*ntishness is not in his name but in the eye-popping fact that he thinks that "doesn't know what post-modern means" is an insult, and a barrier to having the right to a vote.
All of these bloviating feckers are edging their way towards advocating an epistocracy.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
I have done my share of travelling the world over the last ten years but Theresa May's schedule this week is jaw dropping.
Wednesday - PMQ's
Thursday - meeting congress in Philadelphia
Friday - meeting Trump at the White House
Saturday - meeting with Erdogan in Turkey
Says a lot about how she has her diabetes under control
And now the small matter of getting an article 50 bill through Parliament too. She probably didn't need that.
The AG must have told her she had no chance. She has just wasted some time.
On travel: flying west is easy. It's the flying east which is the problem. However, as she is sleeping only one night in USA, her sleep pattern would not have changed much.
Well to go all Confucian on yo 'ass, a people who are scared are easily governable. We have seen that of course with how New Lab pushed through any number of anti-freedom type laws.
Who benefits from minimising the Islamic angle vs who would benefit from a population who is happy for the government to increase its own powers in the name of anti-terrorism?
Good question. Who benefited in Rotherham? Labour. They got a client Pakistani vote and avoided hideous controversy
Who benefits across Europe? I'd say the entire postwar Liberal establishment, which is responsible for mass immigration and multiculturalism, and is fearful of the backlash if these policies are seen to be disastrous (which I think they are)
Indeed they already see a backlash in Wilders and Le Pen, so they close ranks even more
I KNOW all this from my lefty liberal friend who now works for the German BBC. He says they simply suppress stories that might be seen as anti-migrant. They don't run them
And he's a classic Guardian type. Still hates Tories.
This shit is real.
Messed up formatting. Quoting seant
Ironically, the whole doctrine of multiculturalism that has been implicit policy for many years is based on a prejudice - literally a pre judgement - That people who move to a liberal society will themselves turn liberal. If that doesn't work, multiculturalism fails. And it doesn't work. And the establishment in the broadest sense - like the leaders of our main political parties - don't know what the hell to do and don't want us to discuss it.
It's probably a general truth that in modern society , "liberal" prejudice messes up as many lives as the old-fashioned right wing sort.
Been at a gay wedding today, 2 women, one of them my wife's best friend since school. Moving and delightful, I find it completely mysterious that anyone would want to stand in the way of such an affirmation of love and commitment.
On Brexit I am mildly irritated that there is a risk that the period of uncertainty endured since 24th June will continue somewhat longer but I find it hard not to be pretty mellow about it at the moment.
Yes fine, as long as you are happy with the irrefutable truth that the price of gay marriage is brexit. And brexit is forever, whereas in my experience marriages are fairly transient things.
I have done my share of travelling the world over the last ten years but Theresa May's schedule this week is jaw dropping.
Wednesday - PMQ's
Thursday - meeting congress in Philadelphia
Friday - meeting Trump at the White House
Saturday - meeting with Erdogan in Turkey
Says a lot about how she has her diabetes under control
And now the small matter of getting an article 50 bill through Parliament too. She probably didn't need that.
The AG must have told her she had no chance. She has just wasted some time.
On travel: flying west is easy. It's the flying east which is the problem. However, as she is sleeping only one night in USA, her sleep pattern would not have changed much.
I think she bought herself some time. I don't think it was some cunning plan, but it's panned out extremely well for her.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
We do have a hapless Prime Minister who just talks rubbish even when she does not need to do it like Trident missile going awry.
She is literally having to eat her words.
It was Obama's missile that faulted and he told Cameron not to disclose it because some of his missiles are the same and they needed to resolve the issue themselves.
So Cameron and May were treating US classified information accordingly
So it was the wonderful Obama who has questions to answer
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
Elaine Tusk and Barbara Juncker with the big duet:
They need their fantasy and freedom I know them so well
You should read Hugo Rifkind in The Times today...
Populism is inherently post-modern, even if its most ardent practitioners don’t know what “post-modern” means. It holds that if enough people believe a thing, it becomes true. Thus, Brexit must be a good idea because 17 million people voted for it, and Trump must be a safe pair of hands because 63 million voted for him. For the rationalist these things are nonsequiturs, but enough people no longer care. For the populist, there can always be alternative facts, because there are no facts. Not any more. There are only reviews.
For the Hugo Rifkinds of the world, their opinions are facts. It is a fact that mass migration is good. It is a fact that European integration is good. It is a fact multiculturalism is good.
Yeah. Fuck *Hugo Rifkind*. His name alone makes me want to punch him in the face.
HUGO RIFKIND
Is that actually the most instantly-face-punchable name in British journalism?
"Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind and I've got some opinions which you should know. And you'll have to pay for them."
I have done my share of travelling the world over the last ten years but Theresa May's schedule this week is jaw dropping.
Wednesday - PMQ's
Thursday - meeting congress in Philadelphia
Friday - meeting Trump at the White House
Saturday - meeting with Erdogan in Turkey
Says a lot about how she has her diabetes under control
And now the small matter of getting an article 50 bill through Parliament too. She probably didn't need that.
The AG must have told her she had no chance. She has just wasted some time.
On travel: flying west is easy. It's the flying east which is the problem. However, as she is sleeping only one night in USA, her sleep pattern would not have changed much.
I have travelled round the world both east and west bound on many occassions so you do not need to lecture me on jetlag
Brexit still a monumental waste of time and effort that solves precisely none of the problems we face.
Apart from that, all good.
Very true .Be nice to know by the leave converts on here what problems it will resolve.
I've not revealed my vote and don't intend to. But I will try and give an answer that is somewhat less exciting than @SeanT's.
The future trajectory of the other 27 states and their views on how and into what the EU (and its constituent parts) should develop were a long way away from what Britain thought the EU should be that continuing to be part of the same union was, in the long-term, untenable. It was causing strains within Britain and within the EU itself. I think the way the EU behaved and how British politicians behaved in relation to it introduced a new layer of deceitfulness and undemocratic decision-making into British politics. A better arrangement was needed.
Brexit is the result of the fact that such a better arrangement - a relationship which accommodated Britain's views about nationhood and co-operation with other states and the EU's views about how the nations of Continental Europe should develop - could not be put in place. In truth the attempt was never really made.
This will now have to be done from the outside. The result will be different and the path to it more painful than if it had been done from the inside - if Britain had been honest about what it wanted and did not want and if the EU had bothered to listen to Britain's concerns and been more pragmatic/flexible. The EU's determination to go in only one direction and in only one way, no matter what the cost, has cost some of the nations of Europe and, particularly, its young dearly.
Bluntly, we did not fit, we didn't like their long-term aim and, increasingly, we did not want to pay the price of the only bit of it that we were really interested in and profited from - the Single Market.
Brexit is the final working out in British politics of Maastricht. All those fights over the euro and we managed to ignore what FoM and the concept of EU citizenship would mean for the concept of a nation state and what it indicated about the EU's direction of travel.
It would be a rich irony if another Tory government ended up having similar Parliamentary battles as assailed the Major government. But then Major faced Smith. May faces Corbyn so I guess not.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
It also increases the chance of a Tory gain in Copeland; which would be a huge boost to May
We do have a hapless Prime Minister who just talks rubbish even when she does not need to do it like Trident missile going awry.
She is literally having to eat her words.
It was Obama's missile that faulted and he told Cameron not to disclose it because some of his missiles are the same and they needed to resolve the issue themselves.
So Cameron and May were treating US classified information accordingly
So it was the wonderful Obama who has questions to answer
It was so classified that a Freedom of Information query revealed the truth. Who spread the misinformation taht Obama told Cameron not to disclose. Were you there ?
This fake news has been deliberately spread to protect a hapless PM.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
Been at a gay wedding today, 2 women, one of them my wife's best friend since school. Moving and delightful, I find it completely mysterious that anyone would want to stand in the way of such an affirmation of love and commitment.
On Brexit I am mildly irritated that there is a risk that the period of uncertainty endured since 24th June will continue somewhat longer but I find it hard not to be pretty mellow about it at the moment.
Yes fine, as long as you are happy with the irrefutable truth that the price of gay marriage is brexit. And brexit is forever, whereas in my experience marriages are fairly transient things.
I think David L is happy with both gay marriage and Brexit.
However, it's an interesting point. The row over gay marriage in 2012 prompted some Tories to go over to UKIP, and prompted Cameron to offer the EU referendum, to stem the flow of detectors.
We do have a hapless Prime Minister who just talks rubbish even when she does not need to do it like Trident missile going awry.
She is literally having to eat her words.
It was Obama's missile that faulted and he told Cameron not to disclose it because some of his missiles are the same and they needed to resolve the issue themselves.
So Cameron and May were treating US classified information accordingly
So it was the wonderful Obama who has questions to answer
It was so classified that a Freedom of Information query revealed the truth. Who spread the misinformation taht Obama told Cameron not to disclose. Were you there ?
This fake news has been deliberately spread to protect a hapless PM.
This is not fake news - just accept that sometimes news does not fit in with your wishes
I have done my share of travelling the world over the last ten years but Theresa May's schedule this week is jaw dropping.
Wednesday - PMQ's
Thursday - meeting congress in Philadelphia
Friday - meeting Trump at the White House
Saturday - meeting with Erdogan in Turkey
Says a lot about how she has her diabetes under control
And now the small matter of getting an article 50 bill through Parliament too. She probably didn't need that.
The AG must have told her she had no chance. She has just wasted some time.
On travel: flying west is easy. It's the flying east which is the problem. However, as she is sleeping only one night in USA, her sleep pattern would not have changed much.
I have travelled round the world both east and west bound on many occassions so you do not need to lecture me on jetlag
I have done my share of travelling the world over the last ten years but Theresa May's schedule this week is jaw dropping.
Wednesday - PMQ's
Thursday - meeting congress in Philadelphia
Friday - meeting Trump at the White House
Saturday - meeting with Erdogan in Turkey
Says a lot about how she has her diabetes under control
And now the small matter of getting an article 50 bill through Parliament too. She probably didn't need that.
The AG must have told her she had no chance. She has just wasted some time.
On travel: flying west is easy. It's the flying east which is the problem. However, as she is sleeping only one night in USA, her sleep pattern would not have changed much.
I have travelled round the world both east and west bound on many occassions so you do not need to lecture me on jetlag
Ironically, the whole doctrine of multiculturalism that has been implicit policy for many years is based on a prejudice - literally a pre judgement - That people who move to a liberal society will themselves turn liberal. If that doesn't work, multiculturalism fails. And it doesn't work. And the establishment in the broadest sense - like the leaders of our main political parties - don't know what the hell to do and don't want us to discuss it.
It's probably a general truth that in modern society , "liberal" prejudice messes up as many lives as the old-fashioned right wing sort.
It doesn't help when the level of propaganda is turned up to 11 and everything is back to front in people's minds.
The number one hate figure of the Breitbart lot, Angela Merkel, was probably the first Western leader to say that multiculturalism has been a failure. On the other hand, their beacon of purity and common sense, Russia, is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire with a lower percentage of white Europeans than we have here.
Brexit still a monumental waste of time and effort that solves precisely none of the problems we face.
Apart from that, all good.
Very true .Be nice to know by the leave converts on here what problems it will resolve.
I've not revealed my vote and don't intend to. But I will try and give an answer that is somewhat less exciting than @SeanT's.
The future trajectory of the other 27 states and their views on how and into what the EU (and its constituent parts) should develop were a long way away from what Britain thought the EU should be that continuing to be part of the same union was, in the long-term, untenable. It was causing strains within Britain and within the EU itself. I think the way the EU behaved and how British politicians behaved in relation to it introduced a new layer of deceitfulness and undemocratic decision-making into British politics. A better arrangement was needed.
Brexit is the result of the fact that such a better arrangement - a relationship which accommodated Britain's views about nationhood and co-operation with other states and the EU's views about how the nations of Continental Europe should develop - could not be put in place. In truth the attempt was never really made.
This will now have to be done from the outside. The result will be different and the path to it more painful than if it had been done from the inside - if Britain had been honest about what it wanted and did not want and if the EU had bothered to listen to Britain's concerns and been more pragmatic/flexible. The EU's determination to go in only one direction and in only one way, no matter what the cost, has cost some of the nations of Europe and, particularly, its young dearly.
Bluntly, we did not fit, we didn't like their long-term aim and, increasingly, we did not want to pay the price of the only bit of it that we were really interested in and profited from - the Single Market.
Brexit is the final working out in British politics of Maastricht. All those fights over the euro and we managed to ignore what FoM and the concept of EU citizenship would mean for the concept of a nation state and what it indicated about the EU's direction of travel.
It would be a rich irony if another Tory government ended up having similar Parliamentary battles as assailed the Major government. But then Major faced Smith. May faces Corbyn so I guess not.
Your points don't really add up.
The EU gave Britain virtually everything it acked for. Opt outs. Eastern expansion. Rebates.
The idea that nationalism isn't a potent force in other EU states is just not true.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
And remind me who elects/employs Parliament?
The people delegate powers to Parliament. If referendums were final, then we would have legislation enshrining that - just like the Swiss, for example. Or, a referendum Act which specifically mentions that.
Brexit still a monumental waste of time and effort that solves precisely none of the problems we face.
Apart from that, all good.
Very true .Be nice to know by the leave converts on here what problems it will resolve.
THE PROBLEM OF BEING IN A HIDEOUSLY NON-DEMOCRATIC, FRAUDULENT, FLATULENT, ELITIST, EURO-CREATING, COUNTRY-IMPOVERISHING, REFERENDUM-IGNORING MEGA-BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE OF SHITE IN A BUCKET.
That's the problem Brexit will resolve. That's the glitch we seek to mend.
Thanks Seant did not know.you were a leave convert.
However, it's an interesting point. The row over gay marriage in 2012 prompted some Tories to go over to UKIP, and prompted Cameron to offer the EU referendum, to stem the flow of detectors.
"Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind and I've got some opinions which you should know. And you'll have to pay for them."
Writes in the same paper as Sean Thomas...
Indeed. Which is what makes it a great paper.
Here's a test: try saying "Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or "Hello, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or any variation thereof, and see if you can avoid sounding like a Total C*nt.
I reckon it's impossible. The absolute c*ntishness of the name will always shine through.
it's the "Hugo" really though. Insufferably emerging middle class.
Stupid fuss over article 50. I love Trump because he would just sign an executive order. EU countries have lot more to lose than UK. Fuck 'em, let's leave now, let the bankers leave London for Frankfurt - no one wants them - let the liberal elite cry into their soup.Control the borders, stop accepting narrow minded shite from backward religions and let's believe in ourselves.
"Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind and I've got some opinions which you should know. And you'll have to pay for them."
Writes in the same paper as Sean Thomas...
Indeed. Which is what makes it a great paper.
Here's a test: try saying "Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or "Hello, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or any variation thereof, and see if you can avoid sounding like a Total C*nt.
I reckon it's impossible. The absolute c*ntishness of the name will always shine through.
it's the "Hugo" really though. Insufferably emerging middle class.
What do you call the á character Sunil? Is there any significance? Or could you lose the 'accents' and be the same? I wouldn't suggest for a moment of course that you should. I'm enormously fussy about my surname being spelled in the way I want.
Perhaps they're little puffs of steam from the train
We do have a hapless Prime Minister who just talks rubbish even when she does not need to do it like Trident missile going awry.
She is literally having to eat her words.
True I think how it will effect Ireland will be a major problem. Can not see how you can not have a hard border between the north and south when we leave the EU.
Brexit still a monumental waste of time and effort that solves precisely none of the problems we face.
Apart from that, all good.
Very true .Be nice to know by the leave converts on here what problems it will resolve.
THE PROBLEM OF BEING IN A HIDEOUSLY NON-DEMOCRATIC, FRAUDULENT, FLATULENT, ELITIST, EURO-CREATING, COUNTRY-IMPOVERISHING, REFERENDUM-IGNORING MEGA-BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE OF SHITE IN A BUCKET.
That's the problem Brexit will resolve. That's the glitch we seek to mend.
Ah. Westminster being the answer? Give me a break. No change. Especially on the flatulence.
Might need to try again. By resorting to caps do early on you've really left yourself nowhere to go.
Westminster may be full of flatulent fools. But we elect them and can throw them out. We do not elect and cannot throw out any flatulent fools in Brussels who seek to impose laws on us without even the consent of our own politicians (see QMV).
That is a very important distinction. Democracy matters. It is the EU's tragedy - and I think that the desire to create a better future for Europe following the bloody 20th century was and is a noble endeavor - that it has created a polity which is often at odds with democracy.
The EU which has developed does not have democratic default instincts. It does not see itself as deriving power from the people but as imposing its will on the people. It sees government as something which is imposed on a people rather than as an expression of how a people want to arrange their affairs. It seeks to iron out inconsistencies rather than celebrate serendipity. It seeks to eliminate nations because it fears them. It does not understand that it is not the concept of a nation (a people who have a shared history, culture, language, a shared story) which is dangerous but the type of nation it is. And the type of nation a country is is not something which can be mandated by command from the centre.
If there is a choice between democracy and, well pretty much anything, I choose democracy every time. The EU should not have developed in such a way as to make me - and others - think that this was the choice.
Stupid fuss over article 50. I love Trump because he would just sign an executive order. EU countries have lot more to lose than UK. Fuck 'em, let's leave now, let the bankers leave London for Frankfurt - no one wants them - let the liberal elite cry into their soup.Control the borders, stop accepting narrow minded shite from backward religions and let's believe in ourselves.
Bankers are going nowhere. - higher taxes and Financial Transaction Tax
Brexit still a monumental waste of time and effort that solves precisely none of the problems we face.
Apart from that, all good.
Very true .Be nice to know by the leave converts on here what problems it will resolve.
THE PROBLEM OF BEING IN A HIDEOUSLY NON-DEMOCRATIC, FRAUDULENT, FLATULENT, ELITIST, EURO-CREATING, COUNTRY-IMPOVERISHING, REFERENDUM-IGNORING MEGA-BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE OF SHITE IN A BUCKET.
That's the problem Brexit will resolve. That's the glitch we seek to mend.
Ah. Westminster being the answer? Give me a break. No change. Especially on the flatulence.
Might need to try again. By resorting to caps do early on you've really left yourself nowhere to go.
Westminster may be full of flatulent fools. But we elect them and can throw them out. We do not elect and cannot throw out any flatulent fools in Brussels who seek to impose laws on us without even the consent of our own politicians (see QMV).
That is a very important distinction. Democracy matters. It is the EU's tragedy - and I think that the desire to create a better future for Europe following the bloody 20th century was and is a noble endeavor - that it has created a polity which is often at odds with democracy.
The EU which has developed does not have democratic default instincts. It does not see itself as deriving power from the people but as imposing its will on the people. It sees government as something which is imposed on a people rather than as an expression of how a people want to arrange their affairs. It seeks to iron out inconsistencies rather than celebrate serendipity. It seeks to eliminate nations because it fears them. It does not understand that it is not the concept of a nation (a people who have a shared history, culture, language, a shared story) which is dangerous but the type of nation it is. And the type of nation a country is is not something which can be mandated by command from the centre.
If there is a choice between democracy and, well pretty much anything, I choose democracy every time. The EU should not have developed in such a way as to make me - and others - think that this was the choice.
Question for PBers: which seat do you think Labour is most likely to lose, Copeland or Stoke Central?
Copeland. The Labour vote trend for Stoke was posted earlier. Hunt was, at best, a neutral influence on their share. A good local candidate will do better, and Nuttall is clearly just a carpetbagger. The Tories have intimated that they're concentrating on Copeland and think they have a chance, though Labour has at least chosen a credible candidate there.
That said, I expect both seats to be held by Labour.
@bbclaurak: Hear Brexit debates may run til midnight-lots of time being scheduled -cynic cd suggest govt wants Brexit rebels to talk themselves hoarse
By my calcs May has 315 votes she can rely on in almost all divisons.
Given abstentions, unless she has major Tory rebellions by the New Bastards the Government should get their way on the Bill, unless the whips and May are very clumsy and overplay their hand.
Stupid fuss over article 50. I love Trump because he would just sign an executive order. EU countries have lot more to lose than UK. Fuck 'em, let's leave now, let the bankers leave London for Frankfurt - no one wants them - let the liberal elite cry into their soup.Control the borders, stop accepting narrow minded shite from backward religions and let's believe in ourselves.
Bankers are going nowhere. - higher taxes and Financial Transaction Tax
I know. I work amongst the "bankers" and they are going nowhere. We will keep the chinless wonders, putting up house prices, gumming up our roads with 4 x 4s. Let' em go. Fuck the lot of them. Independence Day, can't come soon enough.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
It would rather self defeating given that such a referendum would not prevent Brexit. It would simply mean we left without a deal.
We do have a hapless Prime Minister who just talks rubbish even when she does not need to do it like Trident missile going awry.
She is literally having to eat her words.
True I think how it will effect Ireland will be a major problem. Can not see how you can not have a hard border between the north and south when we leave the EU.
There will have to be a hard border. Otherwise, all this "independence" is a mirage.
Another solution: Northern Ireland joins the Republic.
Has anybody calculated how many extra Border force personnel we will need ?
THE PROBLEM OF BEING IN A HIDEOUSLY NON-DEMOCRATIC, FRAUDULENT, FLATULENT, ELITIST, EURO-CREATING, COUNTRY-IMPOVERISHING, REFERENDUM-IGNORING MEGA-BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE OF SHITE IN A BUCKET.
That's the problem Brexit will resolve. That's the glitch we seek to mend.
Ah. Westminster being the answer? Give me a break. No change. Especially on the flatulence.
Might need to try again. By resorting to caps do early on you've really left yourself nowhere to go.
Westminster may be full of flatulent fools. But we elect them and can throw them out. We do not elect and cannot throw out any flatulent fools in Brussels who seek to impose laws on us without even the consent of our own politicians (see QMV).
That is a very important distinction. Democracy matters. It is the EU's tragedy - and I think that the desire to create a better future for Europe following the bloody 20th century was and is a noble endeavor - that it has created a polity which is often at odds with democracy.
The EU which has developed does not have democratic default instincts. It does not see itself as deriving power from the people but as imposing its will on the people. It sees government as something which is imposed on a people rather than as an expression of how a people want to arrange their affairs. It seeks to iron out inconsistencies rather than celebrate serendipity. It seeks to eliminate nations because it fears them. It does not understand that it is not the concept of a nation (a people who have a shared history, culture, language, a shared story) which is dangerous but the type of nation it is. And the type of nation a country is is not something which can be mandated by command from the centre.
If there is a choice between democracy and, well pretty much anything, I choose democracy every time. The EU should not have developed in such a way as to make me - and others - think that this was the choice.
Lords. Cough.
The HoL should go not be added to. But it is ours - its existence is a result of our history - and its future is in our hands. The same cannot be said of Commissioners elected by no-one on this country who purport to pass laws affecting me through QMV and think that agreement in some remote Council is a worthwhile substitute for a vote by me for a Parliament answerable to voters here.
I think that the government has been making mistake after mistake ever since the referendum result. But at least I can vote it out. That matters to me.
Question for PBers: which seat do you think Labour is most likely to lose, Copeland or Stoke Central?
Everyone seems to think Copeland so I am going to say Stoke. It is also the seat I would prefer us to lose.
neither
Good chance of it being neither. Labour have already chosen a local candidate in Copeland and look like doing the same in Stoke - just like Oldham West.....
We do have a hapless Prime Minister who just talks rubbish even when she does not need to do it like Trident missile going awry.
She is literally having to eat her words.
True I think how it will effect Ireland will be a major problem. Can not see how you can not have a hard border between the north and south when we leave the EU.
There will have to be a hard border. Otherwise, all this "independence" is a mirage.
Another solution: Northern Ireland joins the Republic.
Has anybody calculated how many extra Border force personnel we will need ?
Not at all. There was a common travel area with Eire long before the EEC. There is no reason why heat should not continue.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
It would rather self defeating given that such a referendum would not prevent Brexit. It would simply mean we left without a deal.
That is where you are wrong. There is no provision in the EU referendum act which says that the result is binding.
Brexit still a monumental waste of time and effort that solves precisely none of the problems we face.
Apart from that, all good.
Very true .Be nice to know by the leave converts on here what problems it will resolve.
I've not revealed my vote and don't intend to. But I will try and give an answer that is somewhat less exciting than @SeanT's.
The future trajectory of the other 27 states and their views on how and into what the EU (and its constituent parts) should develop were a long way away from what Britain thought the EU should be that continuing to be part of the same union was, in the long-term, untenable. It was causing strains within Britain and within the EU itself. I think the way the EU behaved and how British politicians behaved in relation to it introduced a new layer of deceitfulness and undemocratic decision-making into British politics. A better arrangement was needed.
Brexit is the result of the fact that such a better arrangement - a relationship which accommodated Britain's views about nationhood and co-operation with other states and the EU's views about how the nations of Continental Europe should develop - could not be put in place. In truth the attempt was never really made.
This will now have to be done from the outside. The result will be different and the path to it more painful than if it had been done from the inside - if Britain had been honest about what it wanted and did not want and if the EU had bothered to listen to Britain's concerns and been more pragmatic/flexible. The EU's determination to go in only one direction and in only one way, no matter what the cost, has cost some of the nations of Europe and, particularly, its young dearly.
Bluntly, we did not fit, we didn't like their long-term aim and, increasingly, we did not want to pay the price of the only bit of it that we were really interested in and profited from - the Single Market.
Brexit is the final working out in British politics of Maastricht. All those fights over the euro and we managed to ignore what FoM and the concept of EU citizenship would mean for the concept of a nation state and what it indicated about the EU's direction of travel.
It would be a rich irony if another Tory government ended up having similar Parliamentary battles as assailed the Major government. But then Major faced Smith. May faces Corbyn so I guess not.
Much appreciated still not from a confirmed leave convert.However I think Major did get a good deal.Also Britain had a good deal with not been a part of the Euro and Schengen to name but two. Cameron was a bad poker player going all in with a queen high.
To pass judgement on them is a bit like discussing the motives of a catalyst in a chemical reaction.
Whether she is a remoaner or, like me a remaunderer, is irrelevant. She did something that needed doing. *Parliament defined the classification of referendums. Parliament must be involved. * and she'll take a lot of s**t for it, maybe from a PBer or two.
We do have a hapless Prime Minister who just talks rubbish even when she does not need to do it like Trident missile going awry.
She is literally having to eat her words.
True I think how it will effect Ireland will be a major problem. Can not see how you can not have a hard border between the north and south when we leave the EU.
There will have to be a hard border. Otherwise, all this "independence" is a mirage.
Another solution: Northern Ireland joins the Republic.
Has anybody calculated how many extra Border force personnel we will need ?
Not at all. There was a common travel area with Eire long before the EEC. There is no reason why heat should not continue.
The hard border is not about people as such. It is more about goods. How will duties be collected ? I should have said Border force and Customs personnel.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The sovereignty of Parliament is supreme.
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
It would rather self defeating given that such a referendum would not prevent Brexit. It would simply mean we left without a deal.
That is where you are wrong. There is no provision in the EU referendum act which says that the result is binding.
Another court case!
We would be bound by the rules of Article 50. After 2 years we are out unless all 27 other countries agree individually that we can continue negotiations. You are grasping at straws.
On topic, my approach to Copeland has been mainly to back Labour but to keep the Conservatives onside (I am very red on UKIP especially).
Similarly, I'm backing Labour in Stoke Central and have the Conservatives covered. UKIP might win but they'd be breaking with all precedent to do so and I'm prepared to pay for education on that front.
@bbclaurak: Hear Brexit debates may run til midnight-lots of time being scheduled -cynic cd suggest govt wants Brexit rebels to talk themselves hoarse
By my calcs May has 315 votes she can rely on in almost all divisons.
Given abstentions, unless she has major Tory rebellions by the New Bastards the Government should get their way on the Bill, unless the whips and May are very clumsy and overplay their hand.
"Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind and I've got some opinions which you should know. And you'll have to pay for them."
Writes in the same paper as Sean Thomas...
Indeed. Which is what makes it a great paper.
Here's a test: try saying "Hi, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or "Hello, I'm Hugo Rifkind", or any variation thereof, and see if you can avoid sounding like a Total C*nt.
I reckon it's impossible. The absolute c*ntishness of the name will always shine through.
it's the "Hugo" really though. Insufferably emerging middle class.
Said Charles.
I think Charles sees himself more as John Cleese than Ronnie Barker.
Comments
That said of course any executive who tried it would probably find itself out of power very very quickly.
On Brexit I am mildly irritated that there is a risk that the period of uncertainty endured since 24th June will continue somewhat longer but I find it hard not to be pretty mellow about it at the moment.
I am completely relaxed about gay marriage. My only grievance about my friends gay marriages is that they seem to be too smug! but Facebook is a great deciever in these things...
Wednesday - PMQ's
Thursday - meeting congress in Philadelphia
Friday - meeting Trump at the White House
Saturday - meeting with Erdogan in Turkey
Says a lot about how she has her diabetes under control
And now the small matter of getting an article 50 bill through Parliament too. She probably didn't need that.
Might need to try again. By resorting to caps do early on you've really left yourself nowhere to go.
Must be 10/1 the field, it's like picking the winner of the Grand National!
What if Parliament through an amendment to the A50 bill says the final deal must be put to a referendum ?
She is literally having to eat her words.
FUCK ME!
What exactly are you saying here?
What exactly are you failing to acknowledge here?
Well to go all Confucian on yo 'ass, a people who are scared are easily governable. We have seen that of course with how New Lab pushed through any number of anti-freedom type laws.
Who benefits from minimising the Islamic angle vs who would benefit from a population who is happy for the government to increase its own powers in the name of anti-terrorism?
Good question. Who benefited in Rotherham? Labour. They got a client Pakistani vote and avoided hideous controversy
Who benefits across Europe? I'd say the entire postwar Liberal establishment, which is responsible for mass immigration and multiculturalism, and is fearful of the backlash if these policies are seen to be disastrous (which I think they are)
Indeed they already see a backlash in Wilders and Le Pen, so they close ranks even more
I KNOW all this from my lefty liberal friend who now works for the German BBC. He says they simply suppress stories that might be seen as anti-migrant. They don't run them
And he's a classic Guardian type. Still hates Tories.
This shit is real.
Ironically, the whole doctrine of multiculturalism that has been implicit policy for many years is based on a prejudice - literally a pre judgement - That people who move to a liberal society will themselves turn liberal. If that doesn't work, multiculturalism fails. And it doesn't work. And the establishment in the broadest sense - like the leaders of our main political parties - don't know what the hell to do and don't want us to discuss it.
It's probably a general truth that in modern society , "liberal" prejudice messes up as many lives as the old-fashioned right wing sort.
The AG must have told her she had no chance. She has just wasted some time.
On travel: flying west is easy. It's the flying east which is the problem. However, as she is sleeping only one night in USA, her sleep pattern would not have changed much.
Well to go all Confucian on yo 'ass, a people who are scared are easily governable. We have seen that of course with how New Lab pushed through any number of anti-freedom type laws.
Who benefits from minimising the Islamic angle vs who would benefit from a population who is happy for the government to increase its own powers in the name of anti-terrorism?
Good question. Who benefited in Rotherham? Labour. They got a client Pakistani vote and avoided hideous controversy
Who benefits across Europe? I'd say the entire postwar Liberal establishment, which is responsible for mass immigration and multiculturalism, and is fearful of the backlash if these policies are seen to be disastrous (which I think they are)
Indeed they already see a backlash in Wilders and Le Pen, so they close ranks even more
I KNOW all this from my lefty liberal friend who now works for the German BBC. He says they simply suppress stories that might be seen as anti-migrant. They don't run them
And he's a classic Guardian type. Still hates Tories.
This shit is real.
Messed up formatting. Quoting seant
Ironically, the whole doctrine of multiculturalism that has been implicit policy for many years is based on a prejudice - literally a pre judgement - That people who move to a liberal society will themselves turn liberal. If that doesn't work, multiculturalism fails. And it doesn't work. And the establishment in the broadest sense - like the leaders of our main political parties - don't know what the hell to do and don't want us to discuss it.
It's probably a general truth that in modern society , "liberal" prejudice messes up as many lives as the old-fashioned right wing sort.
On travel: flying west is easy. It's the flying east which is the problem. However, as she is sleeping only one night in USA, her sleep pattern would not have changed much.
I think she bought herself some time. I don't think it was some cunning plan, but it's panned out extremely well for her.
Are they not mental enough for her?
So Cameron and May were treating US classified information accordingly
So it was the wonderful Obama who has questions to answer
Mine would be Súníl O'Prásánnán
On travel: flying west is easy. It's the flying east which is the problem. However, as she is sleeping only one night in USA, her sleep pattern would not have changed much.
I have travelled round the world both east and west bound on many occassions so you do not need to lecture me on jetlag
The future trajectory of the other 27 states and their views on how and into what the EU (and its constituent parts) should develop were a long way away from what Britain thought the EU should be that continuing to be part of the same union was, in the long-term, untenable. It was causing strains within Britain and within the EU itself. I think the way the EU behaved and how British politicians behaved in relation to it introduced a new layer of deceitfulness and undemocratic decision-making into British politics. A better arrangement was needed.
Brexit is the result of the fact that such a better arrangement - a relationship which accommodated Britain's views about nationhood and co-operation with other states and the EU's views about how the nations of Continental Europe should develop - could not be put in place. In truth the attempt was never really made.
This will now have to be done from the outside. The result will be different and the path to it more painful than if it had been done from the inside - if Britain had been honest about what it wanted and did not want and if the EU had bothered to listen to Britain's concerns and been more pragmatic/flexible. The EU's determination to go in only one direction and in only one way, no matter what the cost, has cost some of the nations of Europe and, particularly, its young dearly.
Bluntly, we did not fit, we didn't like their long-term aim and, increasingly, we did not want to pay the price of the only bit of it that we were really interested in and profited from - the Single Market.
Brexit is the final working out in British politics of Maastricht. All those fights over the euro and we managed to ignore what FoM and the concept of EU citizenship would mean for the concept of a nation state and what it indicated about the EU's direction of travel.
It would be a rich irony if another Tory government ended up having similar Parliamentary battles as assailed the Major government. But then Major faced Smith. May faces Corbyn so I guess not.
This fake news has been deliberately spread to protect a hapless PM.
However, it's an interesting point. The row over gay marriage in 2012 prompted some Tories to go over to UKIP, and prompted Cameron to offer the EU referendum, to stem the flow of detectors.
Good. Now piss off.
You really have no class have you
The number one hate figure of the Breitbart lot, Angela Merkel, was probably the first Western leader to say that multiculturalism has been a failure. On the other hand, their beacon of purity and common sense, Russia, is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire with a lower percentage of white Europeans than we have here.
The EU gave Britain virtually everything it acked for. Opt outs. Eastern expansion. Rebates.
The idea that nationalism isn't a potent force in other EU states is just not true.
Interestingly, you are scared of asking the people. Why ?
Why do you want to carry on wasting people's time and money with neverendums?
‘We are faced with a story that is too big and too important to handle on our own.’
Frederik Obermaier and Bastian Obermayer
The authors are investigative journalists at the Süddeutsche Zeitung in Germany
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/823977856518811656
Another case of creative political accounting...
Perhaps they're little puffs of steam from the train
That is a very important distinction. Democracy matters. It is the EU's tragedy - and I think that the desire to create a better future for Europe following the bloody 20th century was and is a noble endeavor - that it has created a polity which is often at odds with democracy.
The EU which has developed does not have democratic default instincts. It does not see itself as deriving power from the people but as imposing its will on the people. It sees government as something which is imposed on a people rather than as an expression of how a people want to arrange their affairs. It seeks to iron out inconsistencies rather than celebrate serendipity. It seeks to eliminate nations because it fears them. It does not understand that it is not the concept of a nation (a people who have a shared history, culture, language, a shared story) which is dangerous but the type of nation it is. And the type of nation a country is is not something which can be mandated by command from the centre.
If there is a choice between democracy and, well pretty much anything, I choose democracy every time. The EU should not have developed in such a way as to make me - and others - think that this was the choice.
Then, we show them what they are getting into.
If they say YES again, then that's it !
But I think Brexiters are fearful that when the pain starts from the end of this year onward into the next years , they will lose and lose badly.
"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
They'll lose Copeland and retain Stoke, and I think Mike is spot on with the reasoning in the header with regards to Stoke.
Depends on the candidates that actually run of course.
That said, I expect both seats to be held by Labour.
Given abstentions, unless she has major Tory rebellions by the New Bastards the Government should get their way on the Bill, unless the whips and May are very clumsy and overplay their hand.
Front bench spokespersons could resign. They should if Labour is daft enough to put through a three line whip.
Another solution: Northern Ireland joins the Republic.
Has anybody calculated how many extra Border force personnel we will need ?
I think that the government has been making mistake after mistake ever since the referendum result. But at least I can vote it out. That matters to me.
https://twitter.com/stephen_hitchin/status/818908987399741440
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/823979136481984513
Another court case!
https://twitter.com/stephen_hitchin/status/800640080322953216
To pass judgement on them is a bit like discussing the motives of a catalyst in a chemical reaction.
Whether she is a remoaner or, like me a remaunderer, is irrelevant. She did something that needed doing. *Parliament defined the classification of referendums. Parliament must be involved.
* and she'll take a lot of s**t for it, maybe from a PBer or two.
Similarly, I'm backing Labour in Stoke Central and have the Conservatives covered. UKIP might win but they'd be breaking with all precedent to do so and I'm prepared to pay for education on that front.