Raab's at least has the honesty of an outcome, rather than just deferring a decision because she's too afraid to say the PM must open the door to remain.
Raab is profoundly dishonest about what the outcome of a No Deal Brexit will be. Didn’t Morgan vote for May’s deal?
I didn't say he was honest about the effect of the outcome, just that it was an outcome. I assume Morgan did vote for the deal, but the deal is dead and now other options are being considered, including remain, and a delay is just an excuse to not make a decision, not a decision. They do not need more time. Once they decide an extension might be needed to enact it, but no time is needed to make it. Delay is just an opportunity for people to continue to disagree so that remain becomes more viable.
It’s not just a decision on the WA that’s needed for Brexit to happen in an orderly manner on 29th March. There is also a large amount of legislation that needs to be considered and voted on. There is not enough time for that to happen now, especially as the government has no timetable to present it to Parliament.
That's why I said a delay might be needed to enact a decision, but not to make the decision. Once they decide to no deal, or deal, or remain, or whatever, extension might be needed to be requested for all of them. But no delay needs to be requested until they decide. We wouldn't know how much of a delay we'd want, for a start.
Raab's at least has the honesty of an outcome, rather than just deferring a decision because she's too afraid to say the PM must open the door to remain.
Nicky Morgan's position is very close to Labour's position. Interesting.
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
Eerily quiet day so far. Not that much in the papers. A sense of bewilderment and fatigue about.
Dan Hodges in the Mail quotes two Tories - one ERG, one Tory loyalist - who seem to be stockpiling and expecting civil unrest. One talks about “loading his shotgun” in readiness.
Maybe I don’t get out much, but in this part of the Midlands civil unrest seems a very long way from happening. The vast majority of people - Remain or Leave - have better things to do than smash things up, or kill and injure those whose politics they do not share.
Do I really need to stockpile? I don have a gun. Am I screwed? Do Fortnums do Brexit hampers?
A friend of mine was a FAC in Bosnia. His observation was that once society fell apart it didn't matter how well armed you were; what was more important was being part of a larger group. Anybody on their own or a single family got robbed, raped and killed pretty quickly by larger groups. Get friendly with your neighbours!
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
I asked Secret Barrister who knows their onions on this.
Mr. Divvie, not seen that vid or the longer ones, but it's suggested the longer ones paint a very different picture.
Maybe my twitter is too homogeneous, but I wasn't aware that there were different interpretations than (at the very least) over privileged young pricks being disrespectful. What's the very different picture being suggested?
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
But the recall petiton - could that be started now, on the back of her conviction?
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
But the recall petiton - could that be started now, on the back of her conviction?
Section 1(3) Recall of MPs Act 2015 The first recall condition is that—
(a)the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and (b)the appeal period expires without the conviction, sentence or order having being overturned on appeal.
Eerily quiet day so far. Not that much in the papers. A sense of bewilderment and fatigue about.
Dan Hodges in the Mail quotes two Tories - one ERG, one Tory loyalist - who seem to be stockpiling and expecting civil unrest. One talks about “loading his shotgun” in readiness.
Maybe I don’t get out much, but in this part of the Midlands civil unrest seems a very long way from happening. The vast majority of people - Remain or Leave - have better things to do than smash things up, or kill and injure those whose politics they do not share.
Do I really need to stockpile? I don have a gun. Am I screwed? Do Fortnums do Brexit hampers?
Stockpiling guns seems a bit excessive for now. One for each person in the household plus a spare should be adequate.
Mr. Divvie, the suggestion is a longer video (or longer version of the video) shows things being relatively calm, then a person shows up throwing his weight around being aggressive, and the reaction to that is what is shown in the shorter video.
Between trying to get small amounts of work done and rambling here, I haven't bothered to look at either video but even if you watch both and disagree with the suggestion I mentioned above, it's still worthwhile knowing that such an interpretation exists.
Eerily quiet day so far. Not that much in the papers. A sense of bewilderment and fatigue about.
I don’t know...
Is it just me, or is this the day May started winning?
We've heard that before, unfortunately. I just hope things are moving forward, in whatever direction. Not every outcome is desirable, but they need to make some progress toward...something.
I'd like to see Nigel Farage in the Commons. Share very little of his politics but I do recognize him as a first class politician. Certainly cabinet material. One can easily imagine him in one of the great offices of state. That said, the way he has started creeping around Trump and Bannon and ilk, flirting with that sordid bunch across the pond, is deeply disappointing. Casual insidious British racism is one thing, where would we be without it, but the white supremacy movement in America is something else entirely. Stick to the knitting, Nigel, is my advice to him.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
I'd like to see Nigel Farage in the Commons. Share very little of his politics but I do recognize him as a first class politician. Certainly cabinet material. One can easily imagine him in one of the great offices of state. That said, the way he has started creeping around Trump and Bannon and ilk, flirting with that sordid bunch across the pond, is deeply disappointing.
I don't see how these two views really go together.
Farage was an effective leader of his party for many years despite his failures to secure a seat under FPTP, and has had a big influence on the wider British political scene. But I don't see that it follows he's be a good MP or, gods forbid, Minister.
I'd like to see Nigel Farage in the Commons. Share very little of his politics but I do recognize him as a first class politician. Certainly cabinet material. One can easily imagine him in one of the great offices of state. That said, the way he has started creeping around Trump and Bannon and ilk, flirting with that sordid bunch across the pond, is deeply disappointing. Casual insidious British racism is one thing, where would we be without it, but the white supremacy movement in America is something else entirely. Stick to the knitting, Nigel, is my advice to him.
Mr. P, sounds win-win. The left gets to avoid being tainted permanently by Marxist insanity, the country gets to avoid far left lunatics running the show.
Raab's at least has the honesty of an outcome, rather than just deferring a decision because she's too afraid to say the PM must open the door to remain.
Nicky Morgan's position is very close to Labour's position. Interesting.
Is it not just a bit too interesting though? It’s just going to be a crazy inconclusive mess this week isn’t it, more bitter and twisted than anything seen yet?
Meanwhile Britain’s long standing reputation for being Great just burns. ☹️
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
Ireland can look forward to the no deal it has worked for then. For all they claim not to want a hard border either they seem to be working damn hard to ensure it happens.
Just like MPs crying about no deal while working to see it occur, it seems like another situation where people claim not to want something but their actions suggest otherwise, or that at the least they are perfectly content to risk the outcome despite saying they won't.
'Our commitment to ensure no hard border is so strong we will cause a hard border' has not become any less stupid as a political cry.
I don't see how these two views really go together.
What, you can't dislike his politics but rate his abilities as a politician?
No, that he is worthy of a Great Office of State while also creeping around with Bannon and his ilk. If you think the latter is 'disappointing' I don't see how one also believes he is worthy of one of the greatest positions of authority in this country.
I don't discount his abilities as a politician. But none of those abilities particularly suggest he'd make a good minister.
Having a backstop to make a hard border impossible, and containing that within an agreement that seems to have little chance of passing the Commons, thereby making a hard border very likely, is just plain stupid.
Not that it's one-sided, of course. May has hardly played a blinder.
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
I asked Secret Barrister who knows their onions on this.
The relevant law makes no provision for appeals.
Not sure its ever been tested. Relevant provision is s1 of the Representation of the People Act 1981 which provides: A person found guilty of one or more offences (whether before or after the passing of this Act and whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere), and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year, shall be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons while detained anywhere in the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland in pursuance of the sentence or order or while unlawfully at large at a time when he would otherwise be so detained.
2 cases referring to it on Westlaw, neither of any relevance. I have a lot of respect for the secret Barrister but I would disagree. I think that if an appeal against conviction or, possibly, an appeal against sentence which might reduce the penalty below the qualifying level is outstanding then it would be premature to find that the MP was disqualified. I seem to vaguely remember that Huhme was an MP until his appeal had been dealt with but I might be wrong about that.
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
But the recall petiton - could that be started now, on the back of her conviction?
Section 1(3) Recall of MPs Act 2015 The first recall condition is that—
(a)the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and (b)the appeal period expires without the conviction, sentence or order having being overturned on appeal.
So probably not?
Could the Committee on Standards rule that in the light of the conviction alone, she is a bad 'un - and suspend the MP for x sitting days (where x is at least 10...)? That would allow the recall provisions used against Paisley Jnr.
How a convicted MP can still vote on a VONC is beyond me. Not a good look, Westminster. (And I don't see why there should be a need to wait for the outcome of a series of appeals to be exhausted. She is currently convicted. Enough.)
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
I asked Secret Barrister who knows their onions on this.
The relevant law makes no provision for appeals.
Not sure its ever been tested. Relevant provision is s1 of the Representation of the People Act 1981 which provides: A person found guilty of one or more offences (whether before or after the passing of this Act and whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere), and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year, shall be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons while detained anywhere in the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland in pursuance of the sentence or order or while unlawfully at large at a time when he would otherwise be so detained.
2 cases referring to it on Westlaw, neither of any relevance. I have a lot of respect for the secret Barrister but I would disagree. I think that if an appeal against conviction or, possibly, an appeal against sentence which might reduce the penalty below the qualifying level is outstanding then it would be premature to find that the MP was disqualified. I seem to vaguely remember that Huhme was an MP until his appeal had been dealt with but I might be wrong about that.
To take an obvious point if an MP is given bail pending the appeal are they detained?
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
Ireland could not do a bilateral deal on customs even if it wanted to. It is bizarre that even now May does not understand this.
Eerily quiet day so far. Not that much in the papers. A sense of bewilderment and fatigue about.
I don’t know...
Is it just me, or is this the day May started winning?
The bi lateral Ireland treaty seems to be inspired solution to backstop, DUP and brexiteers on board
Dom The Grieves train clearly has the buffers ahead.
And Mogg and others been on a trip to Damascus this week.
May just needs to convert 115 MPs who were adamantly opposed to the deal the first time to support it the second time, given Plan B is actually Plan A.
The Irish bilateral deal idea is is the most single horned of all unicorns. No way will the EU and Ireland even discuss it. If Mrs May floated the idea she's not serious. Apparently the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, that splashed on this "Plan" B, for its part lead on how ridiculous it is.
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
But the recall petiton - could that be started now, on the back of her conviction?
The recall provisions are only relevant if the sentence is less than 12 months. And this is likely to be close with no early plea, solicitor and officer of the court, pretty deliberate course of conduct, etc.
Mr. Divvie, the suggestion is a longer video (or longer version of the video) shows things being relatively calm, then a person shows up throwing his weight around being aggressive, and the reaction to that is what is shown in the shorter video.
Between trying to get small amounts of work done and rambling here, I haven't bothered to look at either video but even if you watch both and disagree with the suggestion I mentioned above, it's still worthwhile knowing that such an interpretation exists.
You are disappearing up the same alt-right cloaca that drove Plato (RIP) mad.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
Coveney is talking about absolute protection, which, of course, he is reasonable to demand.
If the route we get their offends Brexiteers, then it is right to explore other routes. If the substance of it offends Brexiteers, then there is not much hope of resolution this way.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Surely when it comes to Corbyn's position it is not settled yet? He's reactive, and going to wait and see what May's Plan B is so that, whatever it is, he can oppose that.
Yes, but they don't vote as a bloc and as directed.
It would be very interesting to see what the establishment of an ethnic/religious party in the UK would look like. You could argue it wouldn't get more than 10% of the vote, but my guess is it would largely come from Labour and would have a similar disproportionate effect on policy as the UKIP threat did to the Tories.
I didn't come down on either side, I pointed out there is an alternative narrative with a reportedly longer video.
How is that alt-right? Even if the longer version shows nothing different, being aware of the alternative perspective is important because if you want to persuade people to change their mind you need to know where they're coming from.
Mr. Observer, I wonder if May's genuinely stupid, or simply trying to con MPs (ahem) into supporting her deal by knowingly making a nonsensical suggestion.
Oh, we're back on 'Labour might split' stories are we? These MPs really do think we're idiots, how many times are they going to play that card?
How boring!! If Labour splits and the Tories split , we'll end up with a massive centrist party that wins everything.. PB might never recover...
I think we can be confident that if the parties split, the splitters will not work with each other to any large degree. They and their supporters would still be castigating one another for having been part of the evil Tory government or crazy Corbyn opposition, or there'd be too many former Labour and not enough former Tories, and so on and so forth.
Unless it impacted both main parties equally you can be sure it would be painted as just the Tories/Labour by any other name, and would fail to secure wider backing as a result.
Oh, we're back on 'Labour might split' stories are we? These MPs really do think we're idiots, how many times are they going to play that card?
How boring!! If Labour splits and the Tories split , we'll end up with a massive centrist party that wins everything.. PB might never recover...
The problem with that is that the ineffable smugness of such a centre party will only be tolerated so long and then we will choose one or more of the extremes. Ask the Italians.
I'd like to see Nigel Farage in the Commons. Share very little of his politics but I do recognize him as a first class politician. Certainly cabinet material. One can easily imagine him in one of the great offices of state. That said, the way he has started creeping around Trump and Bannon and ilk, flirting with that sordid bunch across the pond, is deeply disappointing. Casual insidious British racism is one thing, where would we be without it, but the white supremacy movement in America is something else entirely. Stick to the knitting, Nigel, is my advice to him.
Would Farage even want to be in Parliament, given the HoC rules on declaring financial interests are stricter than those of the European Parliament?
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
But the recall petiton - could that be started now, on the back of her conviction?
The recall provisions are only relevant if the sentence is less than 12 months. And this is likely to be close with no early plea, solicitor and officer of the court, pretty deliberate course of conduct, etc.
Suspension for more than 10 days by the Committee on Standards is separate ground for recall from criminal conviction though - see clause 1(4) of the Recall of MP's Act 2015.
No, that he is worthy of a Great Office of State while also creeping around with Bannon and his ilk. If you think the latter is 'disappointing' I don't see how one also believes he is worthy of one of the greatest positions of authority in this country.
I don't discount his abilities as a politician. But none of those abilities particularly suggest he'd make a good minister.
Ah OK.
I was actually not only disappointed by his Trump fanboy behaviour but surprised. I had him down as better than that. Speaks to character and not positively. But I do still rate his ability as a politician. Excellent communicator, and I sense would be an effective administrator too.
Worthy of a big government job? No, if worthy implies his character is deserving of it. But yes, if ability is the criteria.
So, what I said - I can envisage him in one of the great offices of state - yes, I stick by that. I can.
More so than Boris Johnson, for example, although I guess that is quite a low bar.
Surely honouring the Manifestos argument is complete red herring, otherwise we would have to have Mays Dementia Tax?
the strong political tradition in this country actually to not honour all manifesto commitments, in fact dump in bin bits in your own that bombed, or were nebulous statements and not thought through, and adopt/steal the inspired and popular bits in your opponents manifesto’s? 🤔
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
But the recall petiton - could that be started now, on the back of her conviction?
The recall provisions are only relevant if the sentence is less than 12 months. And this is likely to be close with no early plea, solicitor and officer of the court, pretty deliberate course of conduct, etc.
Suspension for more than 10 days by the Committee on Standards is separate ground for recall from criminal conviction though - see clause 1(4) of the Recall of MP's Act 2015.
Oh yes, that Act will be in play if she got, say, 6 months. But the Committee on Standards will not act either until the appeal process is finished. Who knows, she may in fact be innocent, after all.
If Article 50 is extended Farage could stay an MEP but of course otherwise ironically the softer the Brexit or indeed even if Brexit is fully reversed, the better the prospects for Farage resurrecting his political career
Surely honouring the Manifestos argument is complete red herring, otherwise we would have to have Mays Dementia Tax?
the strong political tradition in this country actually to not honour all manifesto commitments, in fact dump in bin bits in your own that bombed, or were nebulous statements and not thought through, and adopt/steal the inspired and popular bits in your opponents manifesto’s? 🤔
The demntia tax was "clarified"* though during the campaign.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I'd like to see Nigel Farage in the Commons. Share very little of his politics but I do recognize him as a first class politician. Certainly cabinet material. One can easily imagine him in one of the great offices of state. That said, the way he has started creeping around Trump and Bannon and ilk, flirting with that sordid bunch across the pond, is deeply disappointing. Casual insidious British racism is one thing, where would we be without it, but the white supremacy movement in America is something else entirely. Stick to the knitting, Nigel, is my advice to him.
People who are good at politics do not necessarily make very good cabinet ministers. Farage has done nothing at any time to suggest he has any attributes necessary to be a decent junior minister, let alone one with any level of serious responsibility. That said, the current cabinet has taken the bar so low that even the Labour front bench gets over it now.
Surely honouring the Manifestos argument is complete red herring, otherwise we would have to have Mays Dementia Tax?
the strong political tradition in this country actually to not honour all manifesto commitments, in fact dump in bin bits in your own that bombed, or were nebulous statements and not thought through, and adopt/steal the inspired and popular bits in your opponents manifesto’s? 🤔
Oh, we're back on 'Labour might split' stories are we? These MPs really do think we're idiots, how many times are they going to play that card?
How boring!! If Labour splits and the Tories split , we'll end up with a massive centrist party that wins everything.. PB might never recover...
The problem with that is that the ineffable smugness of such a centre party will only be tolerated so long and then we will choose one or more of the extremes. Ask the Italians.
Our electoral system would benefit such a party if it reached 40%, and destroy it if it fell to 30%
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
Good political chaff though. "We offered the Irish a way out of the hard border. They chose not to even consider it...."
I didn't come down on either side, I pointed out there is an alternative narrative with a reportedly longer video.
How is that alt-right? Even if the longer version shows nothing different, being aware of the alternative perspective is important because if you want to persuade people to change their mind you need to know where they're coming from.
Mr. Observer, I wonder if May's genuinely stupid, or simply trying to con MPs (ahem) into supporting her deal by knowingly making a nonsensical suggestion.
Your defence of alt perspectives (see what I did there) would be stronger if you'd actually looked at the videos. If you've got a link to the one that tells a different story I'd be happy to make myself aware of that alternative perspective.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
Indeed. I fear the good Dr Palmer is trying a bit too hard to be reasonable here. Sometimes when everyone else does something, like react upon conviction, it is still reasonable. The idea everyone should wait is preposterous.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
I think so too. It just means Theresa May is deeply cynical in proposing an alternative that can never happen, rather than woefully ignorant in doing so.
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
Seems odd. In this country my understanding was that you still went to prison and had any relevant sanctions pending appeal and simply compensation etc if the appeal won as you can't get the time back.
What does the relevant statute say? Does it make provision for appeals?
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
Assuming she is not remanded in custody prior to appeal, there is nothing stopping her doing her job, and even though I see nothing wrong with calling her a convicted criminal, I do not see why she needs to be stripped of her position until the appeal has been dealt with.
Given that the.criminal is appealing her conviction, there is no immediate prospect of her leaving the commons. Indeed she seems to show every likelihood of sticking around for as long as possible.
I don't see a by election there in the short term. She will continue to appeal everything possible to keep receiving her salary.
The whole thing stinks.
Not correct.
Her appeal won’t be before her sentencing.
If she’s sentenced for more than 12 months we have a by election.
Don't think that can be right. No by election until the conviction is confirmed on appeal.
Seems odd. In this country my understanding was that you still went to prison and had any relevant sanctions pending appeal and simply compensation etc if the appeal won as you can't get the time back.
What does the relevant statute say? Does it make provision for appeals?
I've quoted it below and it is a bit ambiguous. But it would be normal for an accused to be granted bail pending an appeal of a relatively modest non violent sentence. The risk is that if you don't the appeal becomes academic because the sentence is already served. Pretty sure she will be out on bail at the moment and will apply for bail again once the sentence is imposed.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Flint and Nandy are ignoring settled party policy, 90% of members, and 2/3 of party supporters.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You mre.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
Assuming she is not remanded in custody prior to appeal, there is nothing stopping her doing her job, and even though I see nothing wrong with calling her a convicted criminal, I do not see why she needs to be stripped of her position until the appeal has been dealt with.
Neither does the law apparently (there's presumably a reason why even if sentenced to less than 12 months and not appealing it someone can remain an MP, though I don't know why they left that in), but people were complaining that she was called a criminal, which for now she is. Nor is there anything wrong commenting on some of the details of the original case as reported, like how she had said she wasn't in the car, then if she was in the car she wasn't driving, etc etc.
No we were not there, and the first trial did not convict, but the courts have seen fit to allow details to be public now, so there's nothing wrong with commenting on what we know, or as you say calling her a criminal. She is a criminal. And the party are within their rights to not want to stand by someone through however many appeals there might be. They stood by her until conviction, that's fair enough. She might win an appeal on some procedural point, who knows, while still justifying the party canning her. She has hardly been abandoned by them without cause.
On a slightly different topic have our MPs found their displacement activities for the current week yet or are they all going to bore us stupid telling us what they oppose about Brexit/remain all over again?
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
I expect even Flint and Nandy would vote for EUref2 if the only alternative was No Deal, only Hoey, Mann and Field and Skinner are Labour MPs fully committed to Brexit even up to No Deal
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
I think so too. It just means Theresa May is deeply cynical in proposing an alternative that can never happen, rather than woefully ignorant in doing so.
A more charitable explanation is that because her party is so ungovernable she cannot do anything realistic, she is throwing out any old solution she can think of in blind hope it works. Either way, not good.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
What compromise do you think the government can make without the agreement of the EU? If the government was willing to compromise on the CU, for example, that is not in its gift. If they went to the EU about that it seems unlikely that the EU would agree without some quid pro quo, probably payment into the pot in the same way as others do. They might even want to make FoM a condition. Would the EU be willing to even discuss the quo without some fairly solid guarantee that the revised deal would pass? I doubt it.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
....thereby adding to the split within Labour on calling a second referendum.
Starmer too said he would campaign to stay in the EU in any EUref2 too
Interesting that after a quiet couple of weeks he has popped up strongly again. I assume with COrbyn having played his part in the Labour fence sitting in appearing to be content with us leaving, Starmer had to pop up to counter that with his nods and winks to Remain.
Would Farage even want to be in Parliament, given the HoC rules on declaring financial interests are stricter than those of the European Parliament?
A very good point. I bet he has a finger in many pies and some of them might not bear scrutiny.
However, a seat in the Mother of Parliaments, that has an allure all of its own. At least tempted to go for it, I would have thought, if he thinks he has a good chance.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She could concede a referendum or delay A50 and to start reject a no deal. She won’t do the latter for party reasons.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
May doesn’t have the first clue what to do and is simply thrashing about for anything to give the appearance of doing something. It is pathetic. She will simply run down the clock in the hope that this forces others to vote for the deal. And if they don’t she will take us out with No Deal and with some pathetically inept preparations for it. And will claim that she is fulfilling some mandate for which she ought to get a pat on the back, despite having lost her majority, suffered the worst defeat on a government bill ever, and utterly failed to get her Cabinet and party behind her. The woman is an incompetent menace.
On a slightly different topic have our MPs found their displacement activities for the current week yet or are they all going to bore us stupid telling us what they oppose about Brexit/remain all over again?
Do you actually want an answer? You know what it will be.
May will tomorrow claim she will keep trying for some changes to meet parliament's concerns and say they'll pick up in a few weeks. They are allergic to trying to make some forward progress. They need to start voting on the various options and ruling them out.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
Except labour are not open to an agreement that allows us to do our own trade deals and in the main want to keep us in the EU, but of course Corbyn does not want that and is content for no deal as long as he does not get the blame
All the red lines are are in May’s hands - including the most important of all: time.
She should spend the next week reading some Kipling. Far-called, our navies melt away; On dune and headland sinks the fire: Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the Nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget—lest we forget!
People who are good at politics do not necessarily make very good cabinet ministers. Farage has done nothing at any time to suggest he has any attributes necessary to be a decent junior minister, let alone one with any level of serious responsibility. That said, the current cabinet has taken the bar so low that even the Labour front bench gets over it now.
This is true. Then again, he has not had the chance. Hopefully he will remain, in the eyes of his most ardent supporters, the best cabinet minister we never had.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
....thereby adding to the split within Labour on calling a second referendum.
Starmer too said he would campaign to stay in the EU in any EUref2 too
Interesting that after a quiet couple of weeks he has popped up strongly again. I assume with COrbyn having played his part in the Labour fence sitting in appearing to be content with us leaving, Starmer had to pop up to counter that with his nods and winks to Remain.
In the next few weeks there will be votes on permanent Customs Union membership and permanent Single Market membership, if those are both defeated in the Commons I expect virtually the entire Labour Parliamentary Party to shift to back EUref2 bar a handful of No Deal Leavers like Hoey leaving Corbyn isolated, if he does not move the Labour Party will move for him and vote for EUref2 in any Commons vote
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She could concede a referendum or delay A50 and to start reject a no deal. She won’t do the latter for party reasons.
Rejecting no deal is not for party reasons, it's because rule it out and immediately any hope for any deal goes out the window as another 100 MPs join the 300 Remainers in refusing any option at all because they know it means we remain by default. Same reason for rejecting a delay of A50, that's a decision to remain which they should make properly, not sneak in.
She is rejecting a referendum for party reasons as far as I see it.
Comments
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/1086721064498094080
The relevant law makes no provision for appeals.
The first recall condition is that—
(a)the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and
(b)the appeal period expires without the conviction, sentence or order having being overturned on appeal.
So probably not?
Between trying to get small amounts of work done and rambling here, I haven't bothered to look at either video but even if you watch both and disagree with the suggestion I mentioned above, it's still worthwhile knowing that such an interpretation exists.
Is it just me, or is this the day May started winning?
The bi lateral Ireland treaty seems to be inspired solution to backstop, DUP and brexiteers on board
Dom The Grieves train clearly has the buffers ahead.
And Mogg and others been on a trip to Damascus this week.
Farage was an effective leader of his party for many years despite his failures to secure a seat under FPTP, and has had a big influence on the wider British political scene. But I don't see that it follows he's be a good MP or, gods forbid, Minister.
Meanwhile Britain’s long standing reputation for being Great just burns. ☹️
Just like MPs crying about no deal while working to see it occur, it seems like another situation where people claim not to want something but their actions suggest otherwise, or that at the least they are perfectly content to risk the outcome despite saying they won't.
'Our commitment to ensure no hard border is so strong we will cause a hard border' has not become any less stupid as a political cry.
Minding my language on the sabbath.
I don't discount his abilities as a politician. But none of those abilities particularly suggest he'd make a good minister.
Having a backstop to make a hard border impossible, and containing that within an agreement that seems to have little chance of passing the Commons, thereby making a hard border very likely, is just plain stupid.
Not that it's one-sided, of course. May has hardly played a blinder.
A person found guilty of one or more offences (whether before or after the passing of this Act and whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere), and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year, shall be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons while detained anywhere in the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland in pursuance of the sentence or order or while unlawfully at large at a time when he would otherwise be so detained.
2 cases referring to it on Westlaw, neither of any relevance. I have a lot of respect for the secret Barrister but I would disagree. I think that if an appeal against conviction or, possibly, an appeal against sentence which might reduce the penalty below the qualifying level is outstanding then it would be premature to find that the MP was disqualified. I seem to vaguely remember that Huhme was an MP until his appeal had been dealt with but I might be wrong about that.
How a convicted MP can still vote on a VONC is beyond me. Not a good look, Westminster.
(And I don't see why there should be a need to wait for the outcome of a series of appeals to be exhausted. She is currently convicted. Enough.)
The Irish bilateral deal idea is is the most single horned of all unicorns. No way will the EU and Ireland even discuss it. If Mrs May floated the idea she's not serious. Apparently the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, that splashed on this "Plan" B, for its part lead on how ridiculous it is.
If the route we get their offends Brexiteers, then it is right to explore other routes. If the substance of it offends Brexiteers, then there is not much hope of resolution this way.
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
I didn't come down on either side, I pointed out there is an alternative narrative with a reportedly longer video.
How is that alt-right? Even if the longer version shows nothing different, being aware of the alternative perspective is important because if you want to persuade people to change their mind you need to know where they're coming from.
Mr. Observer, I wonder if May's genuinely stupid, or simply trying to con MPs (ahem) into supporting her deal by knowingly making a nonsensical suggestion.
Unless it impacted both main parties equally you can be sure it would be painted as just the Tories/Labour by any other name, and would fail to secure wider backing as a result.
I was actually not only disappointed by his Trump fanboy behaviour but surprised. I had him down as better than that. Speaks to character and not positively. But I do still rate his ability as a politician. Excellent communicator, and I sense would be an effective administrator too.
Worthy of a big government job? No, if worthy implies his character is deserving of it. But yes, if ability is the criteria.
So, what I said - I can envisage him in one of the great offices of state - yes, I stick by that. I can.
More so than Boris Johnson, for example, although I guess that is quite a low bar.
the strong political tradition in this country actually to not honour all manifesto commitments, in fact dump in bin bits in your own that bombed, or were nebulous statements and not thought through, and adopt/steal the inspired and popular bits in your opponents manifesto’s? 🤔
*ducks under squadron of low flying pigs*
*binned
He won a popular vote with populist bullshit rhetoric, but can't actually get his agenda delivered.
Theresa May is a better politician than either of them
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
But not one led by the sanctimonious t**** of Pimlico.
What does the relevant statute say? Does it make provision for appeals?
No we were not there, and the first trial did not convict, but the courts have seen fit to allow details to be public now, so there's nothing wrong with commenting on what we know, or as you say calling her a criminal. She is a criminal. And the party are within their rights to not want to stand by someone through however many appeals there might be. They stood by her until conviction, that's fair enough. She might win an appeal on some procedural point, who knows, while still justifying the party canning her. She has hardly been abandoned by them without cause.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
However, a seat in the Mother of Parliaments, that has an allure all of its own. At least tempted to go for it, I would have thought, if he thinks he has a good chance.
May will tomorrow claim she will keep trying for some changes to meet parliament's concerns and say they'll pick up in a few weeks. They are allergic to trying to make some forward progress. They need to start voting on the various options and ruling them out.
She should spend the next week reading some Kipling.
Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!
She is rejecting a referendum for party reasons as far as I see it.