politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Queen’s Speech day – and we still don’t if the Tories
Comments
-
I wonder how often that works out satisfactorily!TheScreamingEagles said:
The UK and the EU would not be the first couple that announced they were planning to get divorced, then decided stay married.Richard_Nabavi said:
The legal likelihood is that it is not revocable, but even if it were, who would do it, and what on earth would happen next? Both sides would be well along the route of dismantling things, companies would be well advanced in moving their operations around, etc etc.TheScreamingEagles said:Not if we revoke our article 50 letter.
0 -
Can you imagine the fun Nicola Sturgeon would have with emergency Westminster legislation designed specifically to remove a Scottish veto? It would be all her Christmases come at once.Richard_Nabavi said:
It would require a parliamentary majority to vote in an emergency act to fix the mess and remove the Scottish veto, and the Lords to consent to that. I think that in practice that would happen - it would be such a chaotic mess otherwise that any party playing silly games would be committing political suicide.SouthamObserver said:I know. But it would basically make it much, much harder for the government to change EU laws - it would all have to be done by individual act of Parliament, wouldn't it? It would also surely mean UK courts continuing to refer cases to the ECJ for clarification (though I suspect that might happen anyway). A total clusterfuck, in other words.
Edit: Does anyone have a link to what was actually said?
Edit 2: Also, can't the government simply get round it by putting in a clause in the Repeal Bill saying the Scots have to get stuffed? (They might use slightly different language, of course)
I can't believe that this is anything other than a question of law. It may be quite tricky to frame emergency legislation to get round it without demonstrating clearly and unequivocally that Westminster can, at any time, take the Scottish parliament's powers away - having previously said it would never do so.
0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
...SouthamObserver said:I know. But it would basically make it much, much harder for the government to change EU laws - it would all have to be done by individual act of Parliament, wouldn't it? It would also surely mean UK courts continuing to refer cases to the ECJ for clarification (though I suspect that might happen anyway). A total clusterfuck, in other words.
Edit: Does anyone have a link to what was actually said?
No it's much easier for everyone to assume that this event will (choose as you like):-
* Bad for the Tories.
* Humiliating for TMay.
* Hands power to the EU/Scotland/NI/Wales/Poland (delete as appropriate).
* Shows why A50 will be revoked.
* Will lead to the break up of the UK.
* Categorically proves Brexit is Bad
0 -
Nicola is not mad. She won't let the U.K (and by extension Scotland) fall on to WTO rules.Chris said:
The problem is the article says we leave automatically two years after the formal notification of the intention to leave. That notification has been given. There's no indication in the treaty that a revocation would make any difference.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not if we revoke our article 50 letter.Richard_Nabavi said:
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.SouthamObserver said:If this is true, then we have a major clusterfuck on the horizon that puts all others into the shade. I can't believe it can be.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/877553940908449793
Her whole reason for IndyRef2 is to ensure full access to the single market.
Isn't part of the intention of The Great Repeal Bill is so we can have transitional agreemennts with the E.U.? In which case why would MSP's block it?0 -
We should have left without one.Roger said:
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?Richard_Nabavi said:
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.SouthamObserver said:If this is true, then we have a major clusterfuck on the horizon that puts all others into the shade. I can't believe it can be.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/877553940908449793
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful0 -
Yes, of course. Not having the referendum wouldn't have made the problem go away.Roger said:Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?
Of course, we weren't to know that Labour would be so ambivalent in the campaign, or that Angela Merkel would be such a wonderful asset to the Leave side.0 -
The "Day of Rage" was always 95% rightwingers looking for something to righteously denounce.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/rustinpeace00/status/877556087494455296Big_G_NorthWales said:What has happened to the rage march. Not seen any coverage. Has it sunk without trace
0 -
It was a necessary idea. It would have been better to have had a referendum on Lisbon, or joining the euro, or Maastricht.Roger said:
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?Richard_Nabavi said:
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.SouthamObserver said:If this is true, then we have a major clusterfuck on the horizon that puts all others into the shade. I can't believe it can be.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/877553940908449793
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful0 -
Peter Sallis's wife reportedly left him 16 times before they divorced, and even after that they got back togethern temporarily.TheScreamingEagles said:
The UK and the EU would not be the first couple that announced they were planning to get divorced, then decided stay married.Richard_Nabavi said:
The legal likelihood is that it is not revocable, but even if it were, who would do it, and what on earth would happen next? Both sides would be well along the route of dismantling things, companies would be well advanced in moving their operations around, etc etc.TheScreamingEagles said:Not if we revoke our article 50 letter.
0 -
Yes, I do. Are you one of those left-wing rentiers?Roger said:
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?Richard_Nabavi said:
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.SouthamObserver said:If this is true, then we have a major clusterfuck on the horizon that puts all others into the shade. I can't believe it can be.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/877553940908449793
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful0 -
I'm about half-way between those places. It's still hot but cloudy.Beverley_C said:
Manchester = RainingAndyJS said:Wimbledon = 34 degrees.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/gb/wimbledon/sw19-4/weather-forecast/3233410 -
@kezdugdale: SNP Ministers and MSPs have just voted for a motion condemning themselves - Maybe they're listening to the public after all0
-
Proof that the angry left just can't be bothered outside of the election campaign. Guess they'll go back to moaning on twitter.William_H said:
The "Day of Rage" was always 95% rightwingers looking for something to righteously denounce.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/rustinpeace00/status/877556087494455296Big_G_NorthWales said:What has happened to the rage march. Not seen any coverage. Has it sunk without trace
0 -
Downing Street claims that the Salisbury convention - which says the Lords will not vote against measures in the manifesto of the governing party - will apply to the Queen’s speech. The prime minister’s official spokesman told journalists:
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
From the Guardian live blog.
0 -
They probably got high and forgot to go.Brom said:
Proof that the angry left just can't be bothered outside of the election campaign. Guess they'll go back to moaning on twitter.William_H said:
The "Day of Rage" was always 95% rightwingers looking for something to righteously denounce.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/rustinpeace00/status/877556087494455296Big_G_NorthWales said:What has happened to the rage march. Not seen any coverage. Has it sunk without trace
0 -
The Tories should have known both of these things. But when Dave made the promise to buy off his right flank he did not think he would win in 2015.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, of course. Not having the referendum wouldn't have made the problem go away.Roger said:Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?
Of course, we weren't to know that Labour would be so ambivalent in the campaign, or that Angela Merkel would be such a wonderful asset to the Leave side.
0 -
n
An ice cream van pulled up just as they were about to set off from their point of departure.Essexit said:
They probably got high and forgot to go.Brom said:
Proof that the angry left just can't be bothered outside of the election campaign. Guess they'll go back to moaning on twitter.William_H said:
The "Day of Rage" was always 95% rightwingers looking for something to righteously denounce.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/rustinpeace00/status/877556087494455296Big_G_NorthWales said:What has happened to the rage march. Not seen any coverage. Has it sunk without trace
0 -
There's a House of Lords briefing on this very question here:Richard_Nabavi said:Downing Street claims that the Salisbury convention - which says the Lords will not vote against measures in the manifesto of the governing party - will apply to the Queen’s speech. The prime minister’s official spokesman told journalists:
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
From the Guardian live blog.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2017-0030
The introductory web page includes this comment:
While the Government initially [in 2010] asserted that the Convention still held, in 2011 the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform acknowledged that “with the advent of a coalition government […] the Salisbury-Addison Convention does not operate in the same way, if at all”. During the period of the Coalition Government, there were attempts on three occasions to block a government bill at second reading in the House of Lords, all of which failed.0 -
Boris "pulling an Abbott" on PM0
-
How on earth could the Tories have predicted that Labour would select Corbyn as leader? There's not a single person who predicted that, before GE2015, as far as I know. Under any other leader anyone could imagine, Labour would have campaigned vigorously for Remain.SouthamObserver said:The Tories should have known both of these things. But when Dave made the promise to buy off his right flank he did not think he would win in 2015.
And Merkel's madness in reponse to a photo in the newspapers was equally improbable.0 -
Phew.....now about that Scottish veto......Richard_Nabavi said:Downing Street claims that the Salisbury convention - which says the Lords will not vote against measures in the manifesto of the governing party - will apply to the Queen’s speech. The prime minister’s official spokesman told journalists:
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
From the Guardian live blog.0 -
He is the original champagne socialist. Never so happy as when he is moaning about the plebs from his poolside in southern France.nunu said:
Yes, I do. Are you one of those left-wing rentiers?Roger said:
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?Richard_Nabavi said:
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.SouthamObserver said:If this is true, then we have a major clusterfuck on the horizon that puts all others into the shade. I can't believe it can be.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/877553940908449793
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful0 -
Car crash interview by Eddie Mair with Johnson with him telling lies as usual.0
-
Are you looking forward to forging new trading partnerships with President Roderigo Duterte of the Phillipines and King Salman of Saudi Arabia? Does that give you the control you're looking for?nunu said:
Yes, I do. Are you one of those left-wing rentiers?Roger said:
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?Richard_Nabavi said:
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.SouthamObserver said:If this is true, then we have a major clusterfuck on the horizon that puts all others into the shade. I can't believe it can be.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/877553940908449793
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful0 -
As I am a gentleman I will refrain from answering that.Alice_Aforethought said:
If I post about stables does that make me a horse?Richard_Tyndall said:
You are the one going on about god. You tell me.Alice_Aforethought said:
What faith?Richard_Tyndall said:
How have I been rude? Are you so unsure of your faith that you can't deal with a little bit of righteous scorn?Alice_Aforethought said:One constant of all universes with or without God is that in them Richard Tyndall will be rude to a poster who is not arguing with him.
0 -
I applaud your ambition to pin an unnecessary referendum called by a Tory PM, to solve Tory party problems with its right wing on someone else.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, of course. Not having the referendum wouldn't have made the problem go away.Roger said:Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?
Of course, we weren't to know that Labour would be so ambivalent in the campaign, or that Angela Merkel would be such a wonderful asset to the Leave side.
This mess is a Tory mess.0 -
When Cameron called the referendum, Corbyn was in place and the long hot summer of refugees flooding the south of Europe had taken place. He could have waited a year to see how things might pan out and to build a cross-party case for staying. He chose not to. He then led a campaign that was almost entirely negative and, in parts, hugely mendacious. The blame for where we are now lies solely with the Conservative party - and, more specifically, with Cameron and May.Richard_Nabavi said:
How on earth could the Tories have predicted that Labour would select Corbyn as leader? There's not a single person who predicted that, before GE2015, as far as I know. Under any other leader anyone could imagine, Labour would have campaigned vigorously for Remain.SouthamObserver said:The Tories should have known both of these things. But when Dave made the promise to buy off his right flank he did not think he would win in 2015.
And Merkel's madness in reponse to a photo in the newspapers was equally improbable.
0 -
Nope. When we leave the EU we leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ whether we have passed the relevant acts of Parliament or not. Basically the law will no longer be coherent and it will fall to the UK Supreme Court to sort it out. If you have left a treaty then the provisions of that treaty fall whether you have anything to replace it or not.SouthamObserver said:
They would have the power to get huge concessions from Westminster or to ensure that the UK remain bound by EU laws until individual acts of Parliament changed them.Scott_P said:@ProfChalmers: If "Scots have power to block Brexit" were true, Brexit would be dead. Brexit is not (sadly) dead.
0 -
I agree, if leaving the EU had been in the 2015 Tory manifesto they would have got most of the UKIP votes and a large majority.Brom said:
We should have left without one.Roger said:
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?Richard_Nabavi said:
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.SouthamObserver said:If this is true, then we have a major clusterfuck on the horizon that puts all others into the shade. I can't believe it can be.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/877553940908449793
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful
We'd be out by the of this month and Corbyn would still be a little known backbencher.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
N*w Thr*ad?0
-
Whether you like it or - I don't - the referendum was won by the Leave side, with a clear albeit small majority. Those 52% of voters were not trying to solve Tory party problems, they were excercising a democratic right for which many people, from all parties, had been campaigning for years. If the referendum hadn't happened, that campaign wouldn't have gone away. And if Labour hadn't been so foolish on accession-country immigration, or had not been so dishonest on Lisbon, or had campaigned properly for Remain, it's likely that the result would have been different.Jonathan said:I applaud your ambition to pin an unnecessary referendum called by a Tory PM, to solve Tory party problems with its right wing on someone else.
This mess is a Tory mess.0 -
Streets of Rage, that fine 1990s Mega Drive beat 'em up?MarkHopkins said:PeterC said:
They might have thought of a better name. Day of Rage just sounds so unhinged.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Is that itScott_P said:
https://twitter.com/rustinpeace00/status/877556087494455296Big_G_NorthWales said:What has happened to the rage march. Not seen any coverage. Has it sunk without trace
Perhaps there were millions of other people today who would like to have gone, but instead had to be on the Day of Wage.0 -
Erm, in what world is Holyrood not going to pass a law that puts all European law into the statute books?0
-
Weak, weak, weak.Richard_Nabavi said:
Whether you like it or - I don't - the referendum was won by the Leave side, with a clear albeit small majority. Those 52% of voters were not trying to solve Tory party problems, they were excercising a democratic right for which many people, from all parties, had been campaigning for years. If the referendum hadn't happened, that campaign wouldn't have gone away. And if Labour hadn't been so foolish on accession-country immigration, or had not been so dishonest on Lisbon, or had campaigned properly for Remain, it's likely that the result would have been different.Jonathan said:I applaud your ambition to pin an unnecessary referendum called by a Tory PM, to solve Tory party problems with its right wing on someone else.
This mess is a Tory mess.0 -
They could have asked me.Richard_Nabavi said:Downing Street claims that the Salisbury convention - which says the Lords will not vote against measures in the manifesto of the governing party - will apply to the Queen’s speech. The prime minister’s official spokesman told journalists:
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
From the Guardian live blog.
I'm cheaper than the government lawyers
0 -
If you know your quantum mechanics, you'll realise that a 'given precise moment' isn't actually a thing.david_herdson said:
And yet something must trigger them at the given precise moment that it happens. And while an individual decay might be 'essentially random', the atoms of a given isotope nonetheless conform collectively to a predictable pattern.Nigelb said:
Because they are essentially random ?david_herdson said:
Newton thought differently...dyedwoolie said:
Not at all. You can't see mathematics but it's a truth. There is mathematical evidence of the possibility of multiverses, there is no mathematical evidence of the possibility of God. Nor could there be.Alice_Aforethought said:
So in that case there must either be evidence available that other universes exist, or an acceptance that this is impossible to provide, in which case the "understanding" that they do is based on reasoning and not evidence.dyedwoolie said:
The physics of multiverses is reasonably understood. It's science, not faith.Alice_Aforethought said:
This belief requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.dyedwoolie said:
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
How is that different from religious faith?
Theists have sought for centuries to seek refuge in bits of the universe for which science doesn't have an adequate explanation. As the explicatory power of science expands, they shift their position, after denying it for a time.
But the original point was that there was "no mathematical evidence of the possibility of God. Nor could there be", and I simply contend that such an assertion is not true. While there might not be any evidence of God, there is evidence of the possibility of God (or gods), which simply requires an unexplained phenomenon that exhibits mathematical characteristics and which might be explicable by the intervention of powers unknown and unknowable.
For what it's worth, I think it's nonsense but all the same, unless disproved then the possibility must be admitted.0 -
Johnson had a Diane Abbott moment.Chris_A said:Car crash interview by Eddie Mair with Johnson with him telling lies as usual.
0
