Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The more a challenge to May’s leadership looks likely the less

1235»

Comments

  • I feel McBlair would be a bit more Scottish.
    The most Scottish name I've ever heard of is 'Jocky Scott', apparently he was a football manager
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,362
    surbiton said:

    "A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "

    Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
    HMG lawyers did say it couldn't be withdrawn:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-supreme-court-article-50-notice-cannot-be-withdrawn-2017-1
  • RobD said:

    HMG lawyers did say it couldn't be withdrawn:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-supreme-court-article-50-notice-cannot-be-withdrawn-2017-1
    Lord Goldsmith also said the Iraq was legal.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RobD said:

    I thought only the ECJ could decide on whether or not it could be revoked?
    Only if one party took it there. I think there was a case in a Dublin court about this which was withdrawn, I believe.
  • Enjoy! Not sure about the glass walkway! (Cantilevered out over the side of the ship 13 decks above the waterline!)
    I have always had an ambition to be a ship's captain and standing outside on the bridge high above the water would be something that would give me no problem, so hopefully the cantilever should be fine
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,362
    surbiton said:

    Only if one party took it there. I think there was a case in a Dublin court about this which was withdrawn, I believe.
    Which would have inevitably gone all the way to the ECJ. The fact is we don't know, but the UK government is acting under the assumption it is not (see Miller).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,362

    Lord Goldsmith also said the Iraq was legal.
    Bloody experts!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Goodnight, everyone ! With the reassuring statement that Brexit is doooooooooooooomed.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RobD said:

    Which would have inevitably gone all the way to the ECJ. The fact is we don't know, but the UK government is acting under the assumption it is not (see Miller).
    Correct. Unless there is this legal advice which they are not revealing.

    Definitely, goodnight now !
  • RobD said:

    Bloody experts!
    The best legal advice was the Scottish government's legal advice that there would be an automaticity to an independent Scotland remaining an EU member
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,362

    The best legal advice was the Scottish government's legal advice that there would be an automaticity to an independent Scotland remaining an EU member
    That sort of advice doesn't come cheap.

    I wonder if they got similar advice on APD? titters...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    edited October 2017
    surbiton said:

    "A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "

    Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
    Yes, some spinner is still doing their job right. As I've noted before, neither party contested that A50 could not be withdrawn in the Supreme Court case, so that part was never tested ('it is common ground that notice under article 50(2)...cannot be given in qualified or conditional terms and that, once given, it cannot be withdrawn'). Though a dissenting justice did state 'taking account of the agreed(albeit possibly controversial) assumption that the article 50(2) notice is irrevocable'. So it is interesting that the wording is left open such that it could be.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Lord Goldsmith also said the Iraq was legal.
    And was he right?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    surbiton said:


    Goodnight, everyone ! With the reassuring statement that Brexit is doooooooooooooomed.

    That's only 14 o's, I am reassured.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,103
    RobD said:

    That sort of advice doesn't come cheap.

    I wonder if they got similar advice on APD? titters...
    WTO looming for thick Tories and minimum 20 years in the wilderness, poetic justice.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,362
    kle4 said:

    And was he right?
    I'm reminded of the time when Viceroy Gunray asked Sidious if their military action was legal. :D
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,686
    edited October 2017
    kle4 said:

    And was he right?

    Chilcot report finds legal basis for Iraq invasion 'far from satisfactory'

    Lord Goldsmith was attorney general to the Labour government at the time of the conflict and provided a legal basis for the invasion, which today’s report said took place before “peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”.

    The report stops short of expressing a view on whether military action was legal but in a statement, Sir John Chilcot said: “We have however concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.”

    The report notes the change in advice given by Lord Goldsmith between February and March of 2003 – from saying that a second United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution was necessary for military action, to the judgement that “on balance” it wasn’t.

    In mid-January 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Blair that a further Security Council resolution would be necessary to provide a legal basis for military action. He did not say until the end of February that, while a second resolution would be preferable, a “reasonable case” could be made that it was not, putting this advice in writing on 7 March.

    In response to requests for more clarity from the military and the civil service on whether force would be legal, Lord Goldsmith then advised that the “better view” was that there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action without a further Security Council resolution.

    http://www.legalweek.com/sites/legalweek/2016/07/06/lord-goldsmith-qc-named-as-chilcot-report-finds-legal-basis-for-iraq-invasion-far-from-satisfactory/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Whilst I wouldn't do anything to stop Brexit, I suspect if we're facing a cliff edge/hard/WTO Brexit I suspect some MPs might wish to pause/stop Brexit.
    I imagine they would. Heck, some of us softer leavers might even join them, depending on the situation. But unless it is party policy at some point to change course if the waters become choppy enough, it won't really matter. Labour, as the most likely next government particularly if anyone was suggesting Brexit was going so badly we needed to stop it, would need to be saying they are not prepared to go through with it if it gets too bad, and honestly I'm not sure on any party's position except the LDs (I think).

    And of course as noted legal advice is just that, advice. The government, as governments tend to be, was publicly extremely confident about its A50 case, and IIRC Mr Meeks raised very early that plenty of legal experts thought they were wrong, and so it proved (by majority of the court).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    edited October 2017

    Chilcot report finds legal basis for Iraq invasion 'far from satisfactory'

    Lord Goldsmith was attorney general to the Labour government at the time of the conflict and provided a legal basis for the invasion, which today’s report said took place before “peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”.

    The report stops short of expressing a view on whether military action was legal but in a statement, Sir John Chilcot said: “We have however concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.”

    The report notes the change in advice given by Lord Goldsmith between February and March of 2003 – from saying that a second United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution was necessary for military action, to the judgement that “on balance” it wasn’t.

    In mid-January 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Blair that a further Security Council resolution would be necessary to provide a legal basis for military action. He did not say until the end of February that, while a second resolution would be preferable, a “reasonable case” could be made that it was not, putting this advice in writing on 7 March.

    In response to requests for more clarity from the military and the civil service on whether force would be legal, Lord Goldsmith then advised that the “better view” was that there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action without a further Security Council resolution.

    http://www.legalweek.com/sites/legalweek/2016/07/06/lord-goldsmith-qc-named-as-chilcot-report-finds-legal-basis-for-iraq-invasion-far-from-satisfactory/
    So we don't know, essentially. Just that the confidence with which it was stated it was legal, was not justified?
  • RobD said:

    I'm reminded of the time when Viceroy Gunray asked Sidious if their military action was legal. :D
    "I will MAKE it legal!" :lol:
  • kle4 said:

    So we don't know, essentially. Just that the confidence with which it was stated it was legal, was not justified?
    Yup. International law is murky.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Yup. International law is murky.
    Oh, I thought we were talking about our own law - I've always taken it as a given that international law is, by and large, useless, as noone ever seems to believe they have breached it no matter what they have done. It's probably a case of the effective stuff not getting noticed.
  • kle4 said:

    Oh, I thought we were talking about our own law - I've always taken it as a given that international law is, by and large, useless, as noone ever seems to believe they have breached it no matter what they have done. It's probably a case of the effective stuff not getting noticed.
    Our own law is murky when it comes to constitutional matters.

    What we've done is codified parts of our constitution and left other parts untouched/unexplored.

    Just remember prior to The Fixed Term Parliament Act, the principles on whether a monarch would grant an early election was based on a letter written to The Times, under a pseudonym.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Our own law is murky when it comes to constitutional matters.

    What we've done is codified parts of our constitution and left other parts untouched/unexplored.

    Just remember prior to The Fixed Term Parliament Act, the principles on whether a monarch would grant an early election was based on a letter written to The Times, under a pseudonym.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
    As God intended.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945

    I have always had an ambition to be a ship's captain and standing outside on the bridge high above the water would be something that would give me no problem, so hopefully the cantilever should be fine
    Have fun Big G! Sure there's life in the old battery yet!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2017
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Ishmael_Z said:

    In other news,

    Hungary’s anti-migrant campaign takes root as villagers vent fury

    https://www.ft.com/content/4ae32ad0-a9cb-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97

    and the correlation between touching pitch and being defiled holds steady at 1.

    Are the voters following the government or the government following the voters?

    In the end if the Hungarian government - which enjoys huge leads in current polling - and the voters don't want to accept migrants that Germany wanted initially but now doesn't why shouldn't the democratic will prevail?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,677
    There are passing references in the Observer to a new Opinium poll showing Labour and Corbyn up and May down, and also more people seeing Tories divided than Labour (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/07/tory-party-reshuffle-conservative-cabinet-may) but I don't see the poll itself. Does anyone have the figures?
This discussion has been closed.