Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
You know nothing of isam's background. Pff.
Here's a bit about my background: I was homeless in my 20s. Now we've established my poverty credentials, I've got one think to say: Fuck Brexit.
I was homeless in my 20s too. Next.
Living in a squat in London with junkies and art students is not exactly sleeping on the streets in Wolverhampton, now is it?
In terms of demographics, this site does have quite a few people with eventful life stories, both good and bad. @JBriskinindyref2 has also been homeless if memory serves.
PB, eh? One minute it's heated argument over whether the 1961 or 1945 Lafite is the better vintage, and the next it's who was homeless and penniless and where for longest.
I am prolier than thou.
No, you have to be Brexit Party now for that apparently
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
But isn't that saying that the NI court didn't consider it necessary to decide on those aspects relating to prorogation because English and Scottish courts had already made decisions that were proceeding to the Supreme Court? Excluding isn't the same as rejecting.
That's not my understanding from speaking to one of the counsel representing the MPs in Scotland. The working assumption is that there will be a case from NI forming a part of the appeal on the prorogation point. The NI Court of Appeal is sitting tomorrow to hear the appeal from this decision to facilitate this. Whether the GFA aspect will be carried forward as well I do not know.
HYUFD was absolutely wrong in claiming the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland." The court didn't "take a different line." It decided not to consider the issue.
The issue was before the Judge at first instance, it will be before the Court of Appeal tomorrow and it will be before the Supreme Court on the 17th. I accept it would again be wrong to draw any inference of approval or indeed disapproval from the decision but those are the facts.
Then you accept that HYUFD was taking nonsense when he said the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland."
So why did you say I was wrong? Can you be clear, please?
You said that the cases were about entirely different things and, somewhat unnecessarily, that @HYUFD , was a simpleton who should get someone to explain that to him. You were wrong about that. Although there is a different aspect to the NI case the same issue as raised by the Scottish case and the High Court in London was before the Court and will be carried forward.
The plan is to have cases from each of the jurisdictions dealt with together in the SC so that there is no remaining uncertainty about the outcome, one way or another.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute. Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national. Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society.
But there he is talking about the compatibility of the GFA with a No Deal Brexit, is he not ?
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Thankyou Byronic (though to be fair I have sometimes encountered more abuse canvassing than I ever have on PB)
HYUFD. I salute your persistent posting in the face of mounting opposition. I dont agree with you on Brexit, BJ and the way the Tories have ditched voters like me for people who would rather die than vote Tory. But you will discover that when safe Labour seats remain Labour!
Thankyou, though I note even Tory Remainers like you are voting LD now not Corbyn Labour.
I also have no doubt safe Labour seats will remain safe for now, it is marginal Labour seats the Tories need to win for a majority
I might vote Labour tactically, if the Tories looked like they might win in the seat. But i doubt they will so it is protest voting for LD time! The Tories need a shock to the system. The UKIP\TBP infiltators will dissipate if the Tories are not in power...
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
Their point, surely, is that the Government advised HM Queen to prorogue to pursue the proper purpose of preparing a Queen's Speech, concealing what would have been an improper purpose (in the Court of Session's view) of curtailing debate on Brexit?
If I were to bet on it, I think the Supreme Court will uphold prorogation on the basis that curtailing debate may be right or wrong as a political matter, but is not an improper purpose. They may well, however, be critical of the apparent fact that the true purpose was concealed. That is, the Queen appears to have been lied to.
Makes an amount of sense. Poor form but not illegal?
That's my gut feeling but it will be interesting to see the full judgement of the Court of Session to be published tomorrow.
A relevant aspect will be treatment of the Claim of Right Act 1689, which of course predates the Act of Union. DavidL made the point earlier that he doubts the Supreme Court would conclude that the constitutional position differs in Scotland from the rest of the UK and I tend to agree. If the Court of Session does rely on pre-Act of Union legislation, I think that increases the likelihood that the inconsistency would be resolved in favour of the English court. If they argue it on other grounds, there may be more scope for the Supreme Court to uphold.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Stop calling people diehard remainers as the rhetoric does nothing for the conversation.
On NI - It's patently clear from Para 116 (See above) which way the judge would have decided had the same matter been in consideration before him as was decided by the English and Scottish courts. That is that he would have ruled in favour of the Gov't with the matter of prorogation being non justiciable.
No. That paragraph deals with "the subject matter of these proceedings." Prorogation had been explicitly excluded from the subject matter in paragraph 3.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Thankyou Byronic (though to be fair I have sometimes encountered more abuse canvassing than I ever have on PB)
HYUFD. I salute your persistent posting in the face of mounting opposition. I dont agree with you on Brexit, BJ and the way the Tories have ditched voters like me for people who would rather die than vote Tory. But you will discover that when safe Labour seats remain Labour!
Thankyou, though I note even Tory Remainers like you are voting LD now not Corbyn Labour.
I also have no doubt safe Labour seats will remain safe for now, it is marginal Labour seats the Tories need to win for a majority
I might vote Labour tactically, if the Tories looked like they might win in the seat. But i doubt they will so it is protest voting for LD time! The Tories need a shock to the system. The UKIP\TBP infiltators will dissipate if the Tories are not in power...
I am with you there. A reverse purge of the gullible, dumb and downright fascist is the only way the Conservative Party will become Conservative again.
On NI - It's patently clear from Para 116 (See above) which way the judge would have decided had the same matter been in consideration before him as was decided by the English and Scottish courts. That is that he would have ruled in favour of the Gov't with the matter of prorogation being non justiciable.
I think in fairness to all of the Judges the pressure to get these decisions out so that the next stage can be achieved is immense and their decisions are much more terse on quite difficult issues than would normally be the case.
I just caught Boris Johnson on the radio talking about the impartiality of judges, after Kwasi Kwarteng's (*) rather ill-advised comments. TBF, Boris's response on the judges and judgement seemed very good - although he should never have been in that situation in the first place.
(*) Yes, I did have to look up how to spell his name ...
I wonder if it is a good time or bad time for him to release that book? My feeling its bad given the current political backdrop. More blame might be heading his way...
I just caught Boris Johnson on the radio talking about the impartiality of judges, after Kwasi Kwarteng's (*) rather ill-advised comments. TBF, Boris's response on the judges and judgement seemed very good - although he should never have been in that situation in the first place.
(*) Yes, I did have to look up how to spell his name ...
Well, yes, but it is his minions (and his puppet master) that have created the environment where such a damaging viewpoint can thrive. He needs to do a lot more.
From the Guardian : "Last Thursday, Lord Doherty, a junior judge in Edinburgh"
In April 2010, he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Courts of Scotland, taking the judicial title, Lord Doherty.
How on God's green earth can he be described as "Junior" ?!
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Some people might not survive it. That’s the point. You think this is a game but it isn’t.
The monarch can prorogue Parliament for any reason, even under the FTPA, just not dissolve Parliament yet the Court accused the government of styming Parliament despite the fact it would return for a Queen's Speech before October 31st
We await the detail of the Judges' reasoning tomorrow but in essence they seem to be saying that prorogation is a power given to the PM but it has, like other powers, to be used properly. "Properly" in this context is for a legal or legitimate purpose. They have concluded that it was for an improper purpose, namely curtailing debate and they have therefore found the use of the power was illegitimate in this case.
I don't agree with them, I don't agree that this is a matter for the Courts at all, but it is wrong to say that this is a political decision. It is a decision which was political consequences which is a different matter entirely.
Exactly. The published summary in fact says the Lord President more or less agrees with HYUFD (“The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review...) but goes on to say that “...it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law...”. I think that reasoning is questionable (but as a humble English Solicitor I’m not stupid enough to get into it over the ruling of the senior Scots court) but it is not political, and clearly (despite what HYUFD implies) has nothing to do with Brexit, unless you take the Daily Mail route of implying bad faith and bias, which I’m definitely not stupid enough to do.
From the Guardian : "Last Thursday, Lord Doherty, a junior judge in Edinburgh"
In April 2010, he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Courts of Scotland, taking the judicial title, Lord Doherty.
How on God's green earth can he be described as "Junior" ?!
He is junior to @HYUFD when it comes to legal knowledge that’s for sure.
From the Guardian : "Last Thursday, Lord Doherty, a junior judge in Edinburgh"
In April 2010, he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Courts of Scotland, taking the judicial title, Lord Doherty.
How on God's green earth can he be described as "Junior" ?!
Because he ruled the wrong way. The Guardian is as bad as The Mail.
From the Guardian : "Last Thursday, Lord Doherty, a junior judge in Edinburgh"
In April 2010, he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Courts of Scotland, taking the judicial title, Lord Doherty.
How on God's green earth can he be described as "Junior" ?!
Because he ruled the wrong way. The Guardian is as bad as The Mail.
I don't think this is correct. Cummings strategy is for the Conservatives to take over Brexit Party voters while Labour lose votes to the Lib Dems. In this way Conservatives can win Labour seats without Labour voters switching to the Conservatives.
Like a lot of Cummings' strategies, it depends on people who despise him doing exactly what Cummings wants them to do, to his advantage and not theirs. Cummings takes people for fools in other words. It only works some of the time, as Abraham Lincoln could have told him.
The monarch can prorogue Parliament for any reason, even under the FTPA, just not dissolve Parliament yet the Court accused the government of styming Parliament despite the fact it would return for a Queen's Speech before October 31st
I don't think this is true. If the monarch were to prorogue parliament against the PMs wishes, for example, we would be in an even bigger constitutional mess than we are now.
But the legal footwork at play at the moment is obvious. No one is claiming the Queen committed and illegal act because the Queen, alas, cannot be tried in her own court (although there would be precedent for her being tried by the House). The illegal or unconstitutional act would have been that of her Privy councillors. Now, considering that lying to the House is a resignation offence and has precedents of removal from office and imprisonment by Parliament (remember, Parliament is also a court that can try and imprison people) lying to the sovereign must be in the same ball park of bad.
The difference between the English case and the Scotch case seems to be the difference in question. The English case hinged on "how long", to which the judges said that was a purely political question they could not adjudicate. The Scotch judgement was on the question of "why" was the proroguement happening. To this end they were convinced that the stated reason (a QS) was obviously not the real reason (especially considering nobody from within government would provide a witness statement to that fact) and therefore they must have lied to the Queen and been unlawful.
The courts could take the position the Queen doesn't need to know the real reason why to do a thing, if it weren't for the fact the only reason the Queen can do the thing is due to trust in her PM and the House's trust of the PM. They could also argue that maybe the Privy Council did tell her the real reason and that was just withheld from the House and the public, so they didn't lie to the Queen, just everyone else (which would be unpalatable but not illegal). Either way, interesting times.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Of course we would "survive" either situation you plonker. Despite being a diehard remainer, traitor to the people and all the other childish insults you have aimed at me, I think a soft Brexit is the right solution to reflect the pipsqueak majority of a very iffy referendum. However, to suggest we would not "survive" no Brexit at all is utter hyperbolic bollox. No actually it is braindead.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Some people might not survive it. That’s the point. You think this is a game but it isn’t.
Diehard Remainer scaremongering over a possible No Deal the civil service has spent years preparing for is not the same as the potential end of democracy that would emerge in this country from refusing to respect the Leave vote and the surge in support for authoritarian and nationalist extremes. It is diehard Remainers who need to realise ignoring votes they dislike is no game but has consequences
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
But isn't that saying that the NI court didn't consider it necessary to decide on those aspects relating to prorogation because English and Scottish courts had already made decisions that were proceeding to the Supreme Court? Excluding isn't the same as rejecting.
That's not my understanding from speaking to one of the counsel representing the MPs in Scotland. The working assumption is that there will be a case from NI forming a part of the appeal on the prorogation point. The NI Court of Appeal is sitting tomorrow to hear the appeal from this decision to facilitate this. Whether the GFA aspect will be carried forward as well I do not know.
HYUFD was absolutely wrong in claiming the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland." The court didn't "take a different line." It decided not to consider the issue.
The issue was before the Judge at first instance, it will be before the Court of Appeal tomorrow and it will be before the Supreme Court on the 17th. I accept it would again be wrong to draw any inference of approval or indeed disapproval from the decision but those are the facts.
Then you accept that HYUFD was taking nonsense when he said the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland."
So why did you say I was wrong? Can you be clear, please?
You said that the cases were about entirely different things ...
No.
This is what I said, which you claimed was wrong: The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal. The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Apparently you had missed or misunderstood the fact that prorogation had been explicitly excluded from the Northern Ireland judgment.
I'm sorry, but I'm really sick of reading misleading information posted here - and of people refusing to withdraw it, even when it has been posted inadvertently.
I wonder if it is a good time or bad time for him to release that book? My feeling its bad given the current political backdrop. More blame might be heading his way...
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Using the Royal “we”? Based on a report commissioned by a government formed by your own party, It is very possible, perhaps even likely, that many would not survive it.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Some people might not survive it. That’s the point. You think this is a game but it isn’t.
Diehard Remainer scaremongering over a possible No Deal the civil service has spent years preparing for is not the same as the potential end if democracy that would emerge in this country from refusing to respect the Leave vote and the surge in support for authoritarian and nationalist extremes
Like I said, some people might not survive it. That’s the point. This is not a game.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Some people might not survive it. That’s the point. You think this is a game but it isn’t.
Diehard Remainer scaremongering over a possible No Deal the civil service has spent years preparing for is not the same as the potential end if democracy that would emerge in this country from refusing to respect the Leave vote and the surge in support for authoritarian and nationalist extremes
This “Diehard Remainer scaremongering” comes from a government you support.
From the Guardian : "Last Thursday, Lord Doherty, a junior judge in Edinburgh"
In April 2010, he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Courts of Scotland, taking the judicial title, Lord Doherty.
How on God's green earth can he be described as "Junior" ?!
He was sitting as judge in the junior court. Isn't this similar to the fact Bernie Sanders, 78, is the Junior Senator for Vermont?
I just caught Boris Johnson on the radio talking about the impartiality of judges, after Kwasi Kwarteng's (*) rather ill-advised comments. TBF, Boris's response on the judges and judgement seemed very good - although he should never have been in that situation in the first place.
(*) Yes, I did have to look up how to spell his name ...
Well, yes, but it is his minions (and his puppet master) that have created the environment where such a damaging viewpoint can thrive. He needs to do a lot more.
Indeed - and this all goes back to the (in)famous Daily Mail headline about the judges, which all in politics should have condemned more than they did.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Some people might not survive it. That’s the point. You think this is a game but it isn’t.
Diehard Remainer scaremongering over a possible No Deal the civil service has spent years preparing for is not the same as the potential end if democracy that would emerge in this country from refusing to respect the Leave vote and the surge in support for authoritarian and nationalist extremes
You are the nationalist extreme. In your puppydog fashion you blindly support an English nationalist leading an English Nationalist dominated government. Let us get real here. 98% of the British public would be utterly phlegmatic if there was no Brexit. A small percentage would be ecstatic, and a small percentage would be swivel-eyed and apoplectic, but the latter group always has been like that, and still will be if there is Brexit, so no change really! Actually you are bringing me around to think Revoke might be a good idea after all lol!
The monarch can prorogue Parliament for any reason, even under the FTPA, just not dissolve Parliament yet the Court accused the government of styming Parliament despite the fact it would return for a Queen's Speech before October 31st
I don't think this is true. If the monarch were to prorogue parliament against the PMs wishes, for example, we would be in an even bigger constitutional mess than we are now.
But the legal footwork at play at the moment is obvious. No one is claiming the Queen committed and illegal act because the Queen, alas, cannot be tried in her own court (although there would be precedent for her being tried by the House). The illegal or unconstitutional act would have been that of her Privy councillors. Now, considering that lying to the House is a resignation offence and has precedents of removal from office and imprisonment by Parliament (remember, Parliament is also a court that can try and imprison people) lying to the sovereign must be in the same ball park of bad.
The difference between the English case and the Scotch case seems to be the difference in question. The English case hinged on "how long", to which the judges said that was a purely political question they could not adjudicate. The Scotch judgement was on the question of "why" was the proroguement happening. To this end they were convinced that the stated reason (a QS) was obviously not the real reason (especially considering nobody from within government would provide a witness statement to that fact) and therefore they must have lied to the Queen and been unlawful.
The courts could take the position the Queen doesn't need to know the real reason why to do a thing, if it weren't for the fact the only reason the Queen can do the thing is due to trust in her PM and the House's trust of the PM. They could also argue that maybe the Privy Council did tell her the real reason and that was just withheld from the House and the public, so they didn't lie to the Queen, just everyone else (which would be unpalatable but not illegal). Either way, interesting times.
HMQ doesn't have to be "given a reason". She acts as she is advised. If the govt gave her a reason she would be obliged to evaluate it and decide accordingly. That would necessarily pitch her into the political arena. Her constitutional role is to rubberstamp the advice she receives from the govt. Their motives may be a matter of conjecture but hers are not.
I wonder if it is a good time or bad time for him to release that book? My feeling its bad given the current political backdrop. More blame might be heading his way...
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Some people might not survive it. That’s the point. You think this is a game but it isn’t.
Diehard Remainer scaremongering over a possible No Deal the civil service has spent years preparing for is not the same as the potential end of democracy that would emerge in this country from refusing to respect the Leave vote and the surge in support for authoritarian and nationalist extremes. It is diehard Remainers who need to realise ignoring votes they dislike is no game but has consequences
And yet as we have agreed, you are a diehard Remainer so quit the scaremongering.
You want to stay within the EU, the single market and the customs union, and have free movement of people.
You are the very essence of a diehard Remainer. Now if that is an insult, I apologise. I just call it like it is. You voted Remain at the only available opportunity to register your views, you are an honourable man who doesn't switch political opinions from one moment to the next, and hence you are a diehard Remainer.
The monarch can prorogue Parliament for any reason, even under the FTPA, just not dissolve Parliament yet the Court accused the government of styming Parliament despite the fact it would return for a Queen's Speech before October 31st
I don't think this is true. If the monarch were to prorogue parliament against the PMs wishes, for example, we would be in an even bigger constitutional mess than we are now.
But the legal footwork at play at the moment is obvious. No one is claiming the Queen committed and illegal act because the Queen, alas, cannot be tried in her own court (although there would be precedent for her being tried by the House). The illegal or unconstitutional act would have been that of her Privy councillors. Now, considering that lying to the House is a resignation offence and has precedents of removal from office and imprisonment by Parliament (remember, Parliament is also a court that can try and imprison people) lying to the sovereign must be in the same ball park of bad.
The difference between the English case and the Scotch case seems to be the difference in question. The English case hinged on "how long", to which the judges said that was a purely political question they could not adjudicate. The Scotch judgement was on the question of "why" was the proroguement happening. To this end they were convinced that the stated reason (a QS) was obviously not the real reason (especially considering nobody from within government would provide a witness statement to that fact) and therefore they must have lied to the Queen and been unlawful.
The courts could take the position the Queen doesn't need to know the real reason why to do a thing, if it weren't for the fact the only reason the Queen can do the thing is due to trust in her PM and the House's trust of the PM. They could also argue that maybe the Privy Council did tell her the real reason and that was just withheld from the House and the public, so they didn't lie to the Queen, just everyone else (which would be unpalatable but not illegal). Either way, interesting times.
HMQ doesn't have to be "given a reason". She acts as she is advised. If the govt gave her a reason she would be obliged to evaluate it and decide accordingly. That would necessarily pitch her into the political arena. Her constitutional role is to rubberstamp the advice she receives from the govt. Their motives may be a matter of conjecture but hers are not.
I think that is correct in part. I think if the PM had been truthful to the Queen about why he was proroguing parliament, but lied to the media and public etc., that would be considered fine (if distasteful). The court seems to be saying that lying to the Queen, even by omission, would be illegal.
Someone I could see being very easy to campaign against and with the potential for both more slip-ups and a big negative vote. He's the sort of Tory candidate you'd want running against you - let's hope he gets a marginal.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Some people might not survive it. That’s the point. You think this is a game but it isn’t.
I am no longer in the position of having elderly family members relying heavily on medication and on carers.
If I were, I should be worried to death about the threat of No Deal, given what is in that Yellowhammer document.
Reading the comments here ridiculing those concerns, I can only wonder.
From the Guardian : "Last Thursday, Lord Doherty, a junior judge in Edinburgh"
In April 2010, he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Courts of Scotland, taking the judicial title, Lord Doherty.
How on God's green earth can he be described as "Junior" ?!
He was sitting as judge in the junior court. Isn't this similar to the fact Bernie Sanders, 78, is the Junior Senator for Vermont?
The clarification should have been that the COURT and not the judge was "junior"
As is it has the subtle that he himself has less legal knowledge/is more inexperienced than the Justices at the Court of Session. It simply isn't the case.
Disclaimer, I live on disability benefits and have direct experience of work capability assessment and PIP assessment. I can speak from a position of what would be described as relatively poor (before disability I had well paid work both employed and self employed) Politicians as a whole have very little idea of what poverty, living on low income etc are like The current disability benefits regime is a disgrace, and I haven't even had the pleasure of migration to Universal Credit yet. From my perspective the damage of further delay to Brexit and associated eyes off the ball on domestic issues outweighs the potential damage of leaving WITH DEAL, although if it were 2016 I would vote remain, but it's not so get it done. Life on benefits isn't easy, but its definitely possible as a single person, I'd loathe to have to try and support a family, it was very tough when I was living with my partner who had a low paid job but that all ended so I'm probably actually better off now I'm alone, financially if not emotionally. It's a very different life than that when I had means a few years ago, and I'll be honest I had no idea, so I'm not sure how politicians could possibly properly understand.
No worries there, as long as I can play chess and research things that interest me, eat and stay warm theres not much more needed. Money isn't really all that.
Many (most) libraries have a bank of PCs for public access. If you register with your library you will also get some of the free accesses associated with them, so you get free access to PressReader (today's papers) and the British Newspaper Archive (19th century to approx 2010) and the Times archive. The "British General Election of X" series has been partially digitised and is available via archive.org. if you need to read academic papers, you can register via JSTOR and get limited viewing rights. If you need to read medical research papers, PubMed (or a sidesite?) has many available for free. EventBrite advertises public free events in every area: have a look, see if there is something you like. If your disability does not preclude standing, you can join a local choir, although the bad ones can be bitchy and incestuous.
Sorry, I'm a big fan of libraries. Warm, dry, and if you can avoid the dealers and the nutters, great fun. Plus their ability to get newly-published books is impressive. Many academic works are not scanned (fully) by Google Books but if a hardcopy exists there are always interlibrary loans: you can get academic textbooks costing high-three-figures for high-single/low-double figures.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
Which is why, apart from your ludicrous posts, you are a dumbass. And so is anyone else who thinks No-deal is a good idea under any circumstances.
We would survive it, what we will not survive is refusing to respect democracy and the winning Leave vote
Some people might not survive it. That’s the point. You think this is a game but it isn’t.
Diehard Remainer scaremongering over a possible No Deal the civil service has spent years preparing for is not the same as the potential end if democracy that would emerge in this country from refusing to respect the Leave vote and the surge in support for authoritarian and nationalist extremes
Like I said, some people might not survive it. That’s the point. This is not a game.
I will be in a very bad place if my medication is disrupted. But some people could die through lack of medication, disruption of medical care or personnel. I would also say that the possibility of a fundamental basic service such as water being disrupted is ridiculous. Brexit = stupidity.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
I just caught Boris Johnson on the radio talking about the impartiality of judges, after Kwasi Kwarteng's (*) rather ill-advised comments. TBF, Boris's response on the judges and judgement seemed very good - although he should never have been in that situation in the first place.
(*) Yes, I did have to look up how to spell his name ...
Well, yes, but it is his minions (and his puppet master) that have created the environment where such a damaging viewpoint can thrive. He needs to do a lot more.
Indeed - and this all goes back to the (in)famous Daily Mail headline about the judges, which all in politics should have condemned more than they did.
Yes which was only marginally worse than the Brexitograph frontpage where they had all the pictures of MPs that they, in their infantile (shall I say HYUFD type way) referred to as "traitors".
It would actually be kinda amusing if an election returned the tories as largest party but unable to form a government. People hate to realise the tories are the most popular party in the country, and the Tories would hate coming top and not governing. Everyone Is therefore unhappy so all is equal.
This is quite a likely scenario. In 2017 Con got 317 seats which was close enough to get them the DUP C&S deal.
If Con+BXP are under 310 it becomes much more difficult to get the DUP onside. With this numer of seats even with the DUP it would be around the same as an "Anything but blue" coalition Lab+LD+SNP+PC+Green. This would return Johnson as PM.
Take another 10 off, so that Con+BXP are 300 MPs. Now the numbers are certainly there to block Johnson remaining as PM, which is almost certainly the wish of the LDs and SNP.
Disclaimer, I live on disability benefits and have direct experience of work capability assessment and PIP assessment. I can speak from a position of what would be described as relatively poor (before disability I had well paid work both employed and self employed) Politicians as a whole have very little idea of what poverty, living on low income etc are like The current disability benefits regime is a disgrace, and I haven't even had the pleasure of migration to Universal Credit yet. From my perspective the damage of further delay to Brexit and associated eyes off the ball on domestic issues outweighs the potential damage of leaving WITH DEAL, although if it were 2016 I would vote remain, but it's not so get it done. Life on benefits isn't easy, but its definitely possible as a single person, I'd loathe to have to try and support a family, it was very tough when I was living with my partner who had a low paid job but that all ended so I'm probably actually better off now I'm alone, financially if not emotionally. It's a very different life than that when I had means a few years ago, and I'll be honest I had no idea, so I'm not sure how politicians could possibly properly understand.
No worries there, as long as I can play chess and research things that interest me, eat and stay warm theres not much more needed. Money isn't really all that.
Many (most) libraries have a bank of PCs for public access. If you register with your library you will also get some of the free accesses associated with them, so you get free access to PressReader (today's papers) and the British Newspaper Archive (19th century to approx 2010) and the Times archive. The "British General Election of X" series has been partially digitised and is available via archive.org. if you need to read academic papers, you can register via JSTOR and get limited viewing rights. If you need to read medical research papers, PubMed (or a sidesite?) has many available for free. EventBrite advertises public free events in every area: have a look, see if there is something you like. If your disability does not preclude standing, you can join a local choir, although the bad ones can be bitchy and incestuous.
Sorry, I'm a big fan of libraries. Warm, dry, and if you can avoid the dealers and the nutters, great fun. Plus their ability to get newly-published books is impressive. Many academic works are not scanned (fully) by Google Books but if a hardcopy exists there are always interlibrary loans: you can get academic textbooks costing high-three-figures for high-single/low-double figures.
I use the Forum in Norwich a great deal, they also have chess/board games on a Tuesday Thanks for the ideas though, appreciated. Choir though..... standing is at times problematic and I am tone deaf!
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
From the Guardian : "Last Thursday, Lord Doherty, a junior judge in Edinburgh"
In April 2010, he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Courts of Scotland, taking the judicial title, Lord Doherty.
How on God's green earth can he be described as "Junior" ?!
He was sitting as judge in the junior court. Isn't this similar to the fact Bernie Sanders, 78, is the Junior Senator for Vermont?
I don’t know the form in Scotland, but in England we should say “Last Thursday, giving the judgment of the court below, Lord Doherty held...”
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
It would actually be kinda amusing if an election returned the tories as largest party but unable to form a government. People hate to realise the tories are the most popular party in the country, and the Tories would hate coming top and not governing. Everyone Is therefore unhappy so all is equal.
This is quite a likely scenario. In 2017 Con got 317 seats which was close enough to get them the DUP C&S deal.
If Con+BXP are under 310 it becomes much more difficult to get the DUP onside. With this numer of seats even with the DUP it would be around the same as an "Anything but blue" coalition Lab+LD+SNP+PC+Green. This would return Johnson as PM.
Take another 10 off, so that Con+BXP are 300 MPs. Now the numbers are certainly there to block Johnson remaining as PM, which is almost certainly the wish of the LDs and SNP.
I personally think that is the most likely scenario. SNP and LD on 50+ each, Labour with 220+ but Cons on 280-300 alongside usual additions in NI, Wales etc and, potentially, some Independents and BXPs. LDs may not like Corbyn, but their members will want them to support a government willing to have a 2nd ref, and that will be in the Labour manifesto.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
In March you supported an extension over No Deal.
People are allowed to change their opinion!
Yes but it is amusing to remind someone as fanatical as HYUFD. PBs very own Boris zealot.
Someone I could see being very easy to campaign against and with the potential for both more slip-ups and a big negative vote. He's the sort of Tory candidate you'd want running against you - let's hope he gets a marginal.
Yes indeed. Although the majority of the Maidenhead is 26k so should be pretty safe (although I expect it will go down to c10k next time). It is interesting that with all the other MPs standing down, May has not done so yet. Perhaps a last minute stitch up is planned.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, I want a Deal I just prefer No Deal to further extension
In March you supported an extension over No Deal.
People are allowed to change their opinion!
By the way, Mr Erisdoof, where you the lady or gent that alerted us to the excellent German word "Backpfeifengesicht"? I thought of it the other day when a I saw a picture of Dominic Cummings
I wonder if it is a good time or bad time for him to release that book? My feeling its bad given the current political backdrop. More blame might be heading his way...
I don't know what publishing lead times are, but I would think that there's a risk that a lot of what he writes about the Conservative Party and Brexit will look very stale in the light of recent events.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Particularly so when those who told us to lose money laying Boris are among those digging him out
LDs may not like Corbyn, but their members will want them to support a government willing to have a 2nd ref, and that will be in the Labour manifesto.
LD members have only just voted for Swinson who made her refusal to form a coalition with Corbyn perfectly clear. As did Davey.
We don't trust Corbyn any more than Johnson. Support for Labour means no Corbyn.
I think soft LD voters would punish Swinson more for allowing Johnson / No Deal than enabling Corbyn, Labour and a 2nd ref. Will she be rewarded for supporting Labour? No. But she would deffo be punished if she could prevent a Tory government.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
If i i wanted such a shallow level of insight, i would just listen to boycott on TMS.
I wonder if it is a good time or bad time for him to release that book? My feeling its bad given the current political backdrop. More blame might be heading his way...
I don't know what publishing lead times are, but I would think that there's a risk that a lot of what he writes about the Conservative Party and Brexit will look very stale in the light of recent events.
Indeed. The Tories are a different beast now. I suspect it will be all spin and some of the real driving events will never be disclosed. Some facts are better left outside the public domain!...
I think that is correct in part. I think if the PM had been truthful to the Queen about why he was proroguing parliament, but lied to the media and public etc., that would be considered fine (if distasteful). The court seems to be saying that lying to the Queen, even by omission, would be illegal.
It depends on the full judgement published tomorrow, but the impression I'd got from their summary statement was that the purpose was an improper one regardless of whether the Government had been honest about it. But, as it happens, they also lied about it.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
This is the last test for Gower and Botham on Sky.
Gower is being let go and Botham is quitting to concentrate on Durham and his businesses.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Particularly so when those who told us to lose money laying Boris are among those digging him out
I laid Boris and made money.
Not by laying Boris you didn’t
Well of course I backed him as many times as I laid him but each time I backed him I backed him at a longer price than I had laid him the preceding time.
I'd laid him months ago when he was too short given the general uncertainty and his price lengthened, then I laid him after he had announced he was standing but before anyone else had and once other people announced his price lengthened then I laid him when it got down to the final two and then he decided to get physical with his partner and his price lengthened.
The first two were cold calculating lays, the final one was guessing that he'd do something Boris like and the market would over react and I could take a profit on a minimal outlay - which he did.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
This is the last test for Gower and Botham on Sky.
Gower is being let go and Botham is quitting to concentrate on Durham and his businesses.
I know....they need to get rid of a lot more than those two. Bumble has f##k all idea about modern cricket.
When sky do those masterclasses, it seems the presenters learn as much as the public in regards to what the thinking is for the current top level pros.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
Who is the current team? Last time I had sky it was botham, gower, Atherton, Hussain, holding, Willis and ian Thorpe and bumble Hussain is quality and Atherton I like, holding a good guy but the rest pretty lamentable. Willis the worst TV presenter i think I've ever seen.
LDs may not like Corbyn, but their members will want them to support a government willing to have a 2nd ref, and that will be in the Labour manifesto.
LD members have only just voted for Swinson who made her refusal to form a coalition with Corbyn perfectly clear. As did Davey.
We don't trust Corbyn any more than Johnson. Support for Labour means no Corbyn.
I think soft LD voters would punish Swinson more for allowing Johnson / No Deal than enabling Corbyn, Labour and a 2nd ref. Will she be rewarded for supporting Labour? No. But she would deffo be punished if she could prevent a Tory government.
I think the Lib Dems have 3 groups they are targetting:
Direct switchers from labour Labour tactical votes Tory remainers
The challenge is that all these groups want slightly different things. The Labour tactical voters would I'm sure be much more amenable to a coalition with Corbyn than the Tory remainers
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
If i i wanted such a shallow level of insight, i would just listen to boycott on TMS.
Botham and Gower have not had their contracts renewed. I think that’s harsh on Gower. Botham fits your description but not many others do in my opinion. Nass and Athers are great.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
If i i wanted such a shallow level of insight, i would just listen to boycott on TMS.
Botham and Gower have not had their contracts renewed. I think that’s harsh on Gower. Botham fits your description but not many others do in my opinion. Nass and Athers are great.
sangakkara is the one for me that clearly knows the modern game.
Holding and bumble not a clue especially when it comes to ODIs.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
Who is the current team? Last time I had sky it was botham, gower, Atherton, Hussain, holding, Willis and ian Thorpe and bumble Hussain is quality and Atherton I like, holding a good guy but the rest pretty lamentable. Willis the worst TV presenter i think I've ever seen.
I met a neuroscientist the other day who thinks Willis has some kind of cognitive issue. He was very persuasive on the matter.
Botham has turned into a mildly boorish sot. Time for him to go.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
This is the last test for Gower and Botham on Sky.
Gower is being let go and Botham is quitting to concentrate on Durham and his businesses.
Just saw Botham in a TV ad for a foot massage gizmo!
LDs may not like Corbyn, but their members will want them to support a government willing to have a 2nd ref, and that will be in the Labour manifesto.
LD members have only just voted for Swinson who made her refusal to form a coalition with Corbyn perfectly clear. As did Davey.
We don't trust Corbyn any more than Johnson. Support for Labour means no Corbyn.
I think soft LD voters would punish Swinson more for allowing Johnson / No Deal than enabling Corbyn, Labour and a 2nd ref. Will she be rewarded for supporting Labour? No. But she would deffo be punished if she could prevent a Tory government.
She'd not form a coalition with anyone, but I think she'd do confidence and supply with Corbyn. There doesn't seem to be any scope at all for that with Johnson - on the big issue of the day, Johnson and Swinson are on opposite extremes, whereas you can see an acceptable compromise with Corbyn (albeit they fairly obviously dislike each other greatly).
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
Who is the current team? Last time I had sky it was botham, gower, Atherton, Hussain, holding, Willis and ian Thorpe and bumble Hussain is quality and Atherton I like, holding a good guy but the rest pretty lamentable. Willis the worst TV presenter i think I've ever seen.
I met a neuroscientist the other day who thinks Willis has some kind of cognitive issue. He was very persuasive on the matter.
Botham has turned into a mildly boorish sot. Time for him to go.
Hes just so unbelievably dry, and not in the dry humor way
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
If i i wanted such a shallow level of insight, i would just listen to boycott on TMS.
Botham and Gower have not had their contracts renewed. I think that’s harsh on Gower. Botham fits your description but not many others do in my opinion. Nass and Athers are great.
sangakkara is the one for me that clearly knows the modern game.
Holding and bumble not a clue especially when it comes to ODIs.
There's one Indian guy (I think) who can't actually Speaka Da English.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
If i i wanted such a shallow level of insight, i would just listen to boycott on TMS.
Botham and Gower have not had their contracts renewed. I think that’s harsh on Gower. Botham fits your description but not many others do in my opinion. Nass and Athers are great.
sangakkara is the one for me that clearly knows the modern game.
Holding and bumble not a clue especially when it comes to ODIs.
Bumble always seemed to be there just so they could laugh about that time he got hit in the nuts
LDs may not like Corbyn, but their members will want them to support a government willing to have a 2nd ref, and that will be in the Labour manifesto.
LD members have only just voted for Swinson who made her refusal to form a coalition with Corbyn perfectly clear. As did Davey.
We don't trust Corbyn any more than Johnson. Support for Labour means no Corbyn.
I think soft LD voters would punish Swinson more for allowing Johnson / No Deal than enabling Corbyn, Labour and a 2nd ref. Will she be rewarded for supporting Labour? No. But she would deffo be punished if she could prevent a Tory government.
I think the Lib Dems have 3 groups they are targetting:
Direct switchers from labour Labour tactical votes Tory remainers
The challenge is that all these groups want slightly different things. The Labour tactical voters would I'm sure be much more amenable to a coalition with Corbyn than the Tory remainers
Yeah, think this is probably correct. That's why I think she would be punished for propping up Johnson, but not rewarded for propping up Labour.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
Who is the current team? Last time I had sky it was botham, gower, Atherton, Hussain, holding, Willis and ian Thorpe and bumble Hussain is quality and Atherton I like, holding a good guy but the rest pretty lamentable. Willis the worst TV presenter i think I've ever seen.
I met a neuroscientist the other day who thinks Willis has some kind of cognitive issue. He was very persuasive on the matter.
Botham has turned into a mildly boorish sot. Time for him to go.
Willis has found his niche on the verdict/debate. I love him
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
Who is the current team? Last time I had sky it was botham, gower, Atherton, Hussain, holding, Willis and ian Thorpe and bumble Hussain is quality and Atherton I like, holding a good guy but the rest pretty lamentable. Willis the worst TV presenter i think I've ever seen.
I met a neuroscientist the other day who thinks Willis has some kind of cognitive issue. He was very persuasive on the matter.
Botham has turned into a mildly boorish sot. Time for him to go.
Willis has found his niche on the verdict/debate. I love him
I used to find listening to him like watching 1970s OU programmes.
Well another classic England, playing well, get 30-40 and out.
Kind of Australia to return the favour of sending in some of the reserves and bowl first at the Oval after we obliged with Overton over Woakes at the previous test.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
If i i wanted such a shallow level of insight, i would just listen to boycott on TMS.
Botham and Gower have not had their contracts renewed. I think that’s harsh on Gower. Botham fits your description but not many others do in my opinion. Nass and Athers are great.
sangakkara is the one for me that clearly knows the modern game.
Holding and bumble not a clue especially when it comes to ODIs.
There's one Indian guy (I think) who can't actually Speaka Da English.
Cricket is a BORING game, suitable for Brexiteers and other assorted reactionaries!
Comments
The plan is to have cases from each of the jurisdictions dealt with together in the SC so that there is no remaining uncertainty about the outcome, one way or another.
A relevant aspect will be treatment of the Claim of Right Act 1689, which of course predates the Act of Union. DavidL made the point earlier that he doubts the Supreme Court would conclude that the constitutional position differs in Scotland from the rest of the UK and I tend to agree. If the Court of Session does rely on pre-Act of Union legislation, I think that increases the likelihood that the inconsistency would be resolved in favour of the English court. If they argue it on other grounds, there may be more scope for the Supreme Court to uphold.
Huzzah
(*) Yes, I did have to look up how to spell his name ...
In April 2010, he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Courts of Scotland, taking the judicial title, Lord Doherty.
How on God's green earth can he be described as "Junior" ?!
Quotes doing a lot of work there.
Like a lot of Cummings' strategies, it depends on people who despise him doing exactly what Cummings wants them to do, to his advantage and not theirs. Cummings takes people for fools in other words. It only works some of the time, as Abraham Lincoln could have told him.
But the legal footwork at play at the moment is obvious. No one is claiming the Queen committed and illegal act because the Queen, alas, cannot be tried in her own court (although there would be precedent for her being tried by the House). The illegal or unconstitutional act would have been that of her Privy councillors. Now, considering that lying to the House is a resignation offence and has precedents of removal from office and imprisonment by Parliament (remember, Parliament is also a court that can try and imprison people) lying to the sovereign must be in the same ball park of bad.
The difference between the English case and the Scotch case seems to be the difference in question. The English case hinged on "how long", to which the judges said that was a purely political question they could not adjudicate. The Scotch judgement was on the question of "why" was the proroguement happening. To this end they were convinced that the stated reason (a QS) was obviously not the real reason (especially considering nobody from within government would provide a witness statement to that fact) and therefore they must have lied to the Queen and been unlawful.
The courts could take the position the Queen doesn't need to know the real reason why to do a thing, if it weren't for the fact the only reason the Queen can do the thing is due to trust in her PM and the House's trust of the PM. They could also argue that maybe the Privy Council did tell her the real reason and that was just withheld from the House and the public, so they didn't lie to the Queen, just everyone else (which would be unpalatable but not illegal). Either way, interesting times.
This is what I said, which you claimed was wrong:
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Apparently you had missed or misunderstood the fact that prorogation had been explicitly excluded from the Northern Ireland judgment.
I'm sorry, but I'm really sick of reading misleading information posted here - and of people refusing to withdraw it, even when it has been posted inadvertently.
Interestingly, one of the three bills to be carried forward is for stage 2A of HS2 from the West Midlands to Crewe ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49655201
The QE is open ended!
You want to stay within the EU, the single market and the customs union, and have free movement of people.
You are the very essence of a diehard Remainer. Now if that is an insult, I apologise. I just call it like it is. You voted Remain at the only available opportunity to register your views, you are an honourable man who doesn't switch political opinions from one moment to the next, and hence you are a diehard Remainer.
Someone I could see being very easy to campaign against and with the potential for both more slip-ups and a big negative vote. He's the sort of Tory candidate you'd want running against you - let's hope he gets a marginal.
If I were, I should be worried to death about the threat of No Deal, given what is in that Yellowhammer document.
Reading the comments here ridiculing those concerns, I can only wonder.
As is it has the subtle that he himself has less legal knowledge/is more inexperienced than the Justices at the Court of Session.
It simply isn't the case.
Sorry, I'm a big fan of libraries. Warm, dry, and if you can avoid the dealers and the nutters, great fun. Plus their ability to get newly-published books is impressive. Many academic works are not scanned (fully) by Google Books but if a hardcopy exists there are always interlibrary loans: you can get academic textbooks costing high-three-figures for high-single/low-double figures.
If Con+BXP are under 310 it becomes much more difficult to get the DUP onside. With this numer of seats even with the DUP it would be around the same as an "Anything but blue" coalition Lab+LD+SNP+PC+Green. This would return Johnson as PM.
Take another 10 off, so that Con+BXP are 300 MPs. Now the numbers are certainly there to block Johnson remaining as PM, which is almost certainly the wish of the LDs and SNP.
Thanks for the ideas though, appreciated. Choir though..... standing is at times problematic and I am tone deaf!
Whoah.
Hurrah for liberté, égalité, fraternité.
If i i wanted such a shallow level of insight, i would just listen to boycott on TMS.
They will want to avoid declaring the Prorogation illegal. That would kick off an extremely serious constitutional crisis.
Yet they may be faced with irrefutable evidence that Johnson lied about the reason for doing it.
It will be fascinating how they try to square the circle.
Gower is being let go and Botham is quitting to concentrate on Durham and his businesses.
I'd laid him months ago when he was too short given the general uncertainty and his price lengthened, then I laid him after he had announced he was standing but before anyone else had and once other people announced his price lengthened then I laid him when it got down to the final two and then he decided to get physical with his partner and his price lengthened.
The first two were cold calculating lays, the final one was guessing that he'd do something Boris like and the market would over react and I could take a profit on a minimal outlay - which he did.
When sky do those masterclasses, it seems the presenters learn as much as the public in regards to what the thinking is for the current top level pros.
Hussain is quality and Atherton I like, holding a good guy but the rest pretty lamentable. Willis the worst TV presenter i think I've ever seen.
Direct switchers from labour
Labour tactical votes
Tory remainers
The challenge is that all these groups want slightly different things. The Labour tactical voters would I'm sure be much more amenable to a coalition with Corbyn than the Tory remainers
This obviously assumes that the orange wave hasn’t swept the country and Jo Swinson hasn’t been made PM with a huge majority.
Holding and bumble not a clue especially when it comes to ODIs.
Botham has turned into a mildly boorish sot. Time for him to go.
I met a man who wasn't Blair
He wasn't Blair again today
I wish I wish hed go away
https://twitter.com/cer_grant/status/1172135624163438594?s=21