politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The prospects for The Independent Group

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Endillion said:

williamglenn said:

AnotherEngineer said:

I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.

The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.

Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.

I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.

If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.

May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.

You keep saying this, although as I keep replying to you and you keep studiously ignoring the Tories won a majority with that pledge in Great Britain, while the DUP won a majority pledging the same thing in Northern Ireland.

So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.

I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.

It doesn't really matter. What matters is what those MPs who were elected then will vote for now.

Of course that's true. The fact that hardline extremists like Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve and Allen were elected on a manifesto to implement Brexit and made personal pledges on video during the election to implement Brexit does not mean they are doing so now.

Nah

IanB2 said:

kjohnw said:

Gardenwalker said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.

There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.

On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party

Labour (and/or TIG) offering to support the deal if she does - thereby delivering the majority - and the only other option being to be the PM who trashed the country.

When it's sorted she is going, anyway.

Nah, she won’t risk the total destruction of the Tory party and the rise of Nigel Farages brexit party

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

nico67 said:

The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."

Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.

Bringing her back before she has faced justice in the country in which she chose to live is enabling her to evade justice. Do you think that is right?

I'm not sure whether you were replying to me, or to someone else.

I'm not suggesting that she evades justice abroad, she's perfectly capable of being locked up somewhere else while being a British citizen.

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kjohnw said:

Gardenwalker said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.

There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.

On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party

Circumstances and TIG plus Lib Dems nullify the DUP

She would rather have a GE than second referendum

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?

I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.

Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.

A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.

Stereotomy said:

desertorchid said:

TIG will not have achieved much unless they bring about change in many aspects of our system of government. Radical, radical radical....They want a referendum. Why one? Why not ten a year to keep the politicians in line with what the people want? It's better than waiting 40 years for one that kicks the establishment where it hurts. Why not introduce non-binding in-school elections at 14, non-binding national elections concerning all schools for 16 year olds, a write to vote in general elactions at 18 and compulsory voting at 21. Our democracy needs to be kicked into the 21st century.

TIG should concentrate on breaking the mould. PR, an independent candidate chosen by lottery and a subsequent primary in every constituency. It's not long since we picked 12 good men and true at random (women, LGBTU) and asked them to decide on the life or death of someone on trial for murder. Somehow this process is not good enough for parliament. Dreaming? fanciful? In the words of George Bernard Shaw...

'You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”

Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what's going through Chuka's head

Maybe that is Chuka? On his third post already.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TGOHF said:

The ERG would be mad to agree to any deal until 5 minutes to midnight.

As for a government policy of no deal - good chance we will leave with no deal with that never being policy...

It is time ERG were put back in their box

The ERG represent a significant chunk of the 52%.

They have a choice, TM deal or lose

The last few days has changed the narrative away from the ERG

You've said that about every development for the last three months at least.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kjohnw said:

Gardenwalker said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.

There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.

On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party

Circumstances and TIG plus Lib Dems nullify the DUP

She has only lost three tories the rest of TIG and the Lib Dem’s were already opposition anyway

kjohnw said:

Nah

IanB2 said:

kjohnw said:

Gardenwalker said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.

There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.

On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party

Labour (and/or TIG) offering to support the deal if she does - thereby delivering the majority - and the only other option being to be the PM who trashed the country.

When it's sorted she is going, anyway.

Nah, she won’t risk the total destruction of the Tory party and the rise of Nigel Farages brexit party

Rubbish. There will be no total destruction of the party

ERG have max of 100 leaving over 200 conservatives who do not support them

nielh said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

nico67 said:

Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .

Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.

I ing .

The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."

Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.

The reason is quite simple: Civilisation is breaking down. The rule of law is in serious trouble. We are reverting to a brutal, tribal state of affairs. We just don't realise it or see it, or we otherwise pretend it isn't happening, because it doesn't seem to affect us.

For the last century or so, the idea that banishment without due process is an acceptable form of punishment would be unthinkable. It is the undoing of enlightenment idea of citizenship. But it has all suddenly become okay.

Loss of citizenship has been applied as a penalty ever since people began debating politics.

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."

Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.

Yes, I agree with all that. Just because I think it looks as though Javid has satisfied the part of the procedure relating to citizenship, please don't conclude from that that I think he's necessarily satisfied the other requirements, or that his action is right or wise, or that the existing rules are good ones.

I think politicians should be given as little power as possible to meddle directly in such matters, and there should be strong safeguards against the misuse of what power they are given.

An excellent point.

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't support any vote of no confidence. Either they'd be installing Corbyn as PM, or they'd cause a general election in which they'd vanish.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Endillion said:

williamglenn said:

AnotherEngineer said:

I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.

The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.

Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.

I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.

If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.

May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.

You keep saying this, although as I keep replying to you and you keep studiously ignoring the Tories won a majority with that pledge in Great Britain, while the DUP won a majority pledging the same thing in Northern Ireland.

So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.

I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.

In 2010, neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems had a referendum on AV in their manifestos, yet it was agreed between them.

The DUP manifesto did not have any commitments on leaving the customs union or single market but did have a lot to say about reflecting the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland.

http://www.mydup.com/images/uploads/publications/DUP_Wminster_Manifesto_2017_v5.pdf

Actually it did. From your own link.

On customs: "8. Progress on new free trade deals with the rest of the world" - same as Tory policy, seeking our own trade deals with the rest of the world is only viable by leaving the customs union.

On single market: "29. Jurisdiction of European Court of Justice ended and greater control
over our laws restored" - many others make it clear leaving single market but that one is explicit.

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't support any vote of no confidence. Either they'd be installing Corbyn as PM, or they'd cause a general election in which they'd vanish.

They could vote against the government and then immediately offer to support them on the condition of a second referendum.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

I agree with you but not the vonc. That will not happen as TIG will be extinguished before they start and the lib dems will not support it either

On what basis will TIG be extinguished? Certainly not before a GE and the LDs will back a VONC if the alternative is hard Brexit

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Floater said:

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?

I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.

Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.

I hadn't realised she said if the oldest boy had lived she wanted him to fight for ISIS

That's from the Mirror - not the sun for info

Thanks. I see the Sun article I had looked at credits the Mirror for the speculation. Interestingly, the Mirror quotes an academic who rubbishes the suggestion about the warlord. The Sun reproduces the suggestion but omits the criticism of it.

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TGOHF said:

The ERG would be mad to agree to any deal until 5 minutes to midnight.

As for a government policy of no deal - good chance we will leave with no deal with that never being policy...

It is time ERG were put back in their box

The ERG represent a significant chunk of the 52%.

They have a choice, TM deal or lose

The last few days has changed the narrative away from the ERG

You've said that about every development for the last three months at least.

Strange comment. TIG only started this week

It is becoming clear that the hard brexiteers are trying to drive us over the cliff edge when sensible voters would accept TM deal and move on. I will do everything I can to stop no deal including supporting a referendum on a deal - no deal - remain basis

The outright rejection and fury from the hard brexiteers about a referendum on the three choices is a clear indication they accept they would lose

Let me make this clear, I want to leave but not at any price

rpjs said:

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?

I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.

Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.

A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.

Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?

kjohnw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kjohnw said:

Gardenwalker said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.

There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.

On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party

Circumstances and TIG plus Lib Dems nullify the DUP

She has only lost three tories the rest of TIG and the Lib Dem’s were already opposition anyway

Yes - but they will not vonc the government and will support, along with a majority of mps if push comes to shove, a referendum on the deal and they also negate any power the DUP may have had

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

nico67 said:

Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .

Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.

I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .

Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .

The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.

Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .

The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."

.
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.

There is a legal process though.

EDIT: And it seems that the fact we are debating her citizenship says more about us than the legal process which has already determined that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems that until that matter was settled the decision wasn't taken.

Even if it is clear she had Bangladeshi citizenship, which it certainly is not, why do you think it is right that we dump her on them? She has never even visited Bangladesh.

TheAncientMariner said:

rpjs said:

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?

I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.

Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.

A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.

Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?

My middle names are Peter and John, but I don't think my mother, a wholly unreligious woman, was honouring the apostles of the same names when she chose them.

TheAncientMariner said:

rpjs said:

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?

I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.

Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.

A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.

Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?

She could be a boxing fan

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Her party will

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Actually it did. From your own link.

On customs: "8. Progress on new free trade deals with the rest of the world" - same as Tory policy, seeking our own trade deals with the rest of the world is only viable by leaving the customs union.

On single market: "29. Jurisdiction of European Court of Justice ended and greater control
over our laws restored" - many others make it clear leaving single market but that one is explicit.

Point 8 doesn't say anything about the deals being "our own". The EU-Japan deal would also meet that criteria.

I guess you don't dispute leaving the Single Market (29) is crystal clear?

I think the meaning of Point 8 is clear. Further context is points 9 and 11 which speaks of new "customs arrangements" with the EU, not a customs union.

A "comprehensive free trade and customs agreement" could easily mean a customs union and "strong single market deal". It's pretty close to Labour's current position.

Agreed on point 29 but the extent of ECJ jurisdiction would obviously have to be negotiated as part of the above deal.

TheAncientMariner said:

rpjs said:

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?

I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.

Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.

A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.

Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?

Well, in that Mirror article Michael Mumisa of the Faculty of Asian and Middle-Eastern Studies, Cambridge, said that Jarrah was actually the name of the warlord's grandfather. If that's correct the speculation is nonsense anyway.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Her party will

No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee

@rcs1000

I have been a government lawyer, though not in the Home Office. Ministers are legally entitled to make all sorts of decisions using their discretion. But three points:-

1. That discretion is usually very heavily qualified by the relevant statute, case law, the ECHR etc. A Minister cannot simply do whatever they feel like.
2. Ministers will invariably seek legal advice before proceeding. It would be a very foolish Minister indeed who acted without benefit of legal advice, especially in a sensitive case. They want the protection of legal advice. That gives the in-house lawyers a lot of power.
3. A Ministerial decision is open to legal challenge.

There is nothing unusual in this. Very many decisions - by Ministers, by councillors, by officials using delegated powers - are made every day in a very wide range of sectors affecting the rights and obligations of British citizens. Nationality is just one of them. And usually, the decision is made first, the challenge comes after. Imagine if the situation were reversed: no decision could be taken without a court process first to determine its legality. Nothing at all would ever get done.

You might argue that nationality is so special that it ought to be subject to some special court process before it is taken away. There is some merit in that. But, the time to argue that was when the law was being passed. It would be interesting to know if any arguments were raised in opposition at the time and who these came from. But let’s not pretend that the use of Ministerial discretion in this area was some fearfully unusual departure from normal British practice.

There is one good reason why you might want to have the balance this way round - decision first, challenge later. Imagine the government had intelligence that a terrorist who undoubtedly had dual citizenship was about to try and enter Britain using his British passport and was doing so for the purpose of committing a terrorist outrage. You don’t have much time. In those circumstances, having the power to stop someone getting on a plane to fly here is necessary. You don’t want a prolonged court case to determine the legality of your proposed action after said terrorist has turned up on your shores and blown up a few citizens.

_Anazina_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

nico67 said:

Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .

Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.

I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .

Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .

The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.

Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .

The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."

.
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.

There is a legal process though.

EDIT: And it seems that the fact we are debating her citizenship says more about us than the legal process which has already determined that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems that until that matter was settled the decision wasn't taken.

Even if it is clear she had Bangladeshi citizenship, which it certainly is not, why do you think it is right that we dump her on them? She has never even visited Bangladesh.

Well said. The governments position is wrong, borderline ridiculous and ultimately self defeating. In other words everything we’ve come to expect from May.

kle4 said:

_Anazina_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

nico67 said:

Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .

Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.

I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .

Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .

The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.

Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .

The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


M."

.
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.

There is a legal process though.

EDIT: And it seems that the fact we are debating her citizenship says more about us than the legal process which has already determined that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems that until that matter was settled the decision wasn't taken.

Even if it is clear she had Bangladeshi citizenship, which it certainly is not, why do you think it is right that we dump her on them? She has never even visited Bangladesh.

A fair point, although not visiting it may well be irrelevant to the legal position, we shall see. It may well be diplomatically ill advised even if legally and morally acceptable in principle (obviously many disagree on the the acceptability of both)

Indeed the Bangladeshi government have already told us to Foxtrot Oscar, and understandably so. Given she was born here, raised here and has never cast a single breath in Bangladesh the idea that we - a supposedly civilised nation - should try to dump her there is utterly risible.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of

Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.

Yes, I agree with all that. Just because I think it looks as though Javid has satisfied the part of the procedure relating to citizenship, please don't conclude from that that I think he's necessarily satisfied the other requirements, or that his action is right or wise, or that the existing rules are good ones.

I think politicians should be given as little power as possible to meddle directly in such matters, and there should be strong safeguards against the misuse of what power they are given.

An excellent point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47313657

Hoda Muthana: Trump says IS woman barred from US return

US President Donald Trump says a woman who left the US to become a propagandist for the Islamic State (IS) group will not be allowed to return.
On Twitter, he said he had instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo "not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the country".
Mr Pompeo had earlier stated that the 24-year-old was not a US citizen and would not be admitted.
However, her family and her lawyer maintain that she has US citizenship.
Ms Muthana, who grew up in Alabama, travelled to Syria to join IS when she was 20. She had told her family she was going to a university event in Turkey.
The case has similarities to that of UK-born teenager Shamima Begum who has been stripped of her British citizenship.

Your point being that Trump is a hypocrite? I agree entirely.

Philip_Thompson said:

NickPalmer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Rubbish. There will be no total destruction of the party

ERG have max of 100 leaving over 200 conservatives who do not support them

Yes...no more than a third of the Parliamentary party would vanish. Just a flesh wound, you reckon? I don't think I'd fancy it on my side.

Well said.

If Labour loses a third of its MPs to TIG that would be a serious crisis. Same for the Tories. Its nothing to laugh over.

Disagree. I would find it side-splittingly hilarious.

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

rpjs said:

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?

I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.

Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.

A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.

Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?

Well, in that Mirror article Michael Mumisa of the Faculty of Asian and Middle-Eastern Studies, Cambridge, said that Jarrah was actually the name of the warlord's grandfather. If that's correct the speculation is nonsense anyway.

I think you can safely stop reading the Mirror. I mean this in the way I'd suggest that stepping back from a bomb was better than not stepping back. You've clearly made some awful choices in life in terms of what you read. The good news is that whatever your new path is, it'll be better.

TheAncientMariner said:

rpjs said:

Chris said:

TheAncientMariner said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?

I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.

Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.

A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.

Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?

A Liverpool fan.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stonch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.

As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.

Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.

Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.

Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.

The idea of you as a shark is ridiculous. I must say your parroting of your bizarre view on what democracy is - not having a *democratic* opportunity to review or revise any decision until it’s fully enacted - is really tiresome now. Work out your issues elsewhere and stop being so bloody boring!

Another moron who doesn't understand that democracy is not just about asking a question but enacting the response as well. Stop being so bloody thick.

Thanks for those kind words. The result of the referendum was enacted when Article 50 was triggered. A change of direction for the government due to a change of circumstances should always be countenanced, even it upsets a previously settled will: it’s how real people behave, it’s how businesses behave, it’s how governments behave. According to your ubsubtle logic no policy could be revised until implemented in full, if necessary to the death. That’s not even worth taking seriously.

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Her party will

No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee

Most conservative mps will not

Then they need to act, since May's strategy appears to be just hope people back her deal when they would not before, or back no deal and blame the EU.

I understand only Liz Truss now supports no deal in the cabinet

Next week may shed some clarity on the matter, but TM cannot survive her cabinet resigning

Stonch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stonch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.

As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.

Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.

Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.

Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.

The idea of you as a shark is ridiculous. I must say your parroting of your bizarre view on what democracy is - not having a *democratic* opportunity to review or revise any decision until it’s fully enacted - is really tiresome now. Work out your issues elsewhere and stop being so bloody boring!

Another moron who doesn't understand that democracy is not just about asking a question but enacting the response as well. Stop being so bloody thick.

A change of direction for the government due to a change of circumstances should always be countenanced, even it upsets a previously settled will: it’s how real people behave, it’s how businesses behave, it’s how governments behave.

It's why u-turns, though usually mocked and derided, are often both necessary and appropriate. I do think they need to be justified, and I think some issues require a very high level of justification, but there's nothing wrong with the principle.

V

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

nico67 said:

The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."

Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.

Bringing her back before she has faced justice in the country in which she chose to live is enabling her to evade justice. Do you think that is right?

I'm not sure whether you were replying to me, or to someone else.

I'm not suggesting that she evades justice abroad, she's perfectly capable of being locked up somewhere else while being a British citizen.

Oh sure. I am all in favour of her bring investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted by the Iraqi / Syrian authorities. And according to the news today they are quite keen to do this.

williamglenn said:

"I have absolutely no time for the others at all."

https://twitter.com/BarryGardiner/status/1098657156855988224

https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/1098658320548794368?s=19

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Her party will

No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee

Most conservative mps will not

Then they need to act, since May's strategy appears to be just hope people back her deal when they would not before, or back no deal and blame the EU.

I understand only Liz Truss now supports no deal in the cabinet

Next week may shed some clarity on the matter, but TM cannot survive her cabinet resigning

Then the ERG need to break. May cannot survive without them, either.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stonch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.

It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.

No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.

In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.

* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.

It wasn't about the party manifestos. It was about the individual promises those candidates made. Anna Soubry, as an example, actually included a promise to abide by the referendum result in her own personal election literature.

And her constituents can and will judge her on it. Her response would sensibly be that she didn’t realise how disasterous the situation at this point would be. Circumstances have changed. Only sociopaths want Brexit now.

Stonch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stonch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.

It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.

No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.

In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.

* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.

It wasn't about the party manifestos. It was about the individual promises those candidates made. Anna Soubry, as an example, actually included a promise to abide by the referendum result in her own personal election literature.

And her constituents can and will judge her on it. Her response would sensibly be that she didn’t realise how disasterous the situation at this point would be. Circumstances have changed. Only sociopaths want Brexit now.

LOL!

Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.

kle4 said:

_Anazina_ said:

Indeed the Bangladeshi government have already told us to Foxtrot Oscar, and understandably so. Given she was born here, raised here and has never cast a single breath in Bangladesh the idea that we - a supposedly civilised nation - should try to dump her there is utterly risible.

I have no issue with the issue to deprive of her citizenship if it was done legally, but Javid should be prepared to face the diplomatic consequences. So I wonder if he asked Hunt about the decision before he took it, given Hunt will be the one who has to smooth things over with Bangladesh if they discover they have no choice but to accept her as a citizen.

Probably not, who knows?

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Her party will

No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee

Most conservative mps will not

Sadly most Conservative MPs voted to make May immune to challenge for 12 months. And its too late to get a new government in place before Brexit day too.

No it isn't, you can change government in a day as happens after most general elections.

All it takes is for a new PM to travel up the Mall, kiss hands with the Queen then appoint his new Cabinet later that day

Yes if the PM resigns.

If the PM doesn't resign it is hard to force that on her. If we go to a General Election then its too late.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Her party will

No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee

Most conservative mps will not

Most Tory MPs voted against the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal, even Javid and Hunt have said they will back No Deal as a last resort to keep their leadership hopes up.

So it will be down to TIG and more Tory MPs defecting to it to stop No Deal, I expect if necessary they will offer May a Deal v Remain referendum as a price of their support, if not they will make the same offer to Labour or agree a permanent Customs Union with the opposition

MaxPB said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Her party will

No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee

Most conservative mps will not

Then they need to act, since May's strategy appears to be just hope people back her deal when they would not before, or back no deal and blame the EU.

I understand only Liz Truss now supports no deal in the cabinet

Next week may shed some clarity on the matter, but TM cannot survive her cabinet resigning

Then the ERG need to break. May cannot survive without them, either.

I think they will. They know if we lose our majority a second referendum becomes inevitable. I have no doubt the EU will agree to an A50 extension to facilitate an election and new government which will take their default no deal option off the table.

As I said, the presence of TIG will force the ERG to compromise, they have taken the option of no deal off the table and I think JRM has realised already given the lack of reaction from him when the Malthouse amendment was shunted into the future relationship despite it being billed as a change to the WA.

I hope you’re right.

I think the ERG could bring the whole house down.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stonch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.

It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.

No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.

In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.

* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.

It wasn't about the party manifestos. It was about the individual promises those candidates made. Anna Soubry, as an example, actually included a promise to abide by the referendum result in her own personal election literature.

I assumed she was talking about the 1975 referendum

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stonch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.

As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.

Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.

Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.

Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.

The idea of you as a shark is ridiculous. I must say your parroting of your bizarre view on what democracy is - not having a *democratic* opportunity to review or revise any decision until it’s fully enacted - is really tiresome now. Work out your issues elsewhere and stop being so bloody boring!

Another moron who doesn't understand that democracy is not just about asking a question but enacting the response as well. Stop being so bloody thick.

OED definition of democracy: "Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them."

No mention of having to execute a decision before it is put to the vote again. That is an invention of yours (endlessly repeated) that suits your argument but has no merit. Who is the moron?

John Stuart Mill pointed out one flaw of democracy was the tyranny of the majority; We sometimes see this in muslim democracies (Egypt) where the majority government insists everyone should obey Sharia law. Northern Ireland had a problem with an entrenched majority rule of protestants until their democracy was tweaked.

The UK has a worse problem. Tyranny by the minority. A government based on say 38% of the popular vote can ram its policies home against the wishes of the other 62% because of our totally crap electoral system.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Dadge said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098642379798663169

So.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.

May's deal won't pass.

What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum

It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support

TIG won't take her down just now.

They will if hard Brexit looks likely

Her party will

No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee

Most conservative mps will not

Sadly most Conservative MPs voted to make May immune to challenge for 12 months. And its too late to get a new government in place before Brexit day too.

No it isn't, you can change government in a day as happens after most general elections.

All it takes is for a PM to lose a VONC and a new PM to win a VONC and the new PM to travel up the Mall, kiss hands with the Queen then appoint his new Cabinet later that day

Now then. His may well be her