Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is Trump really just a 17% chance to be impeached?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited August 8 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is Trump really just a 17% chance to be impeached?

Graphic – Recent YouGov polling on impeaching Trump

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Top piece again, not just because I agree with the article.
  • Oh was that an e pluribus unum for the second time today?

    Quite remarkable.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,217
    Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,131
    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514

    Oh was that an e pluribus unum for the second time today?

    Quite remarkable.

    DRS has apparently stopped working.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 152

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    Inviting a foreign power to hack the US elections? Defunding election security so it can happen again? Nepotism in appointments? Perverting government policy to benefit his own business? Breaking federal law in detaining migrants in inhumane conditions? Refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    In fairness, Trump is rather more than 'a bit' of a twat.

    But you're right, for impeachment to work they have to show something either illegal or unconstitutional that he's done.

    Otherwise, they're left with the 25th Amendment.

    But as long as Mike Pence is Vice-President neither seems exactly likely. If Romney or Ryan were VP I think there is a good chance an excuse to act would have been found before now.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,131
    So, I watched my gambling programme last night.

    Tony Bloom did indeed get namechecked for his million quid football bets in Asian markets based on statistical analysis.

    They highlighted the problem that people here suffer of their max bets being reduced to almost nothing because you're a winnar.

    Being the beeb, he obviously didn't double his money.

    It passed the time I guess.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,009
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.

    I came back from Paris on the Eurostar on Sunday and the queues for EU passports at the Gare du Nord were horrendous - non-EU, on the other hand, had no queue at all.

    I think I have discovered the first positive advantage of leaving the EU.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,274
    Labour's UK leadership have realised winning support of SNP MPs is best chance to get to Downing Street

    “... what he was doing was acknowledging that Labour is effectively dead as a viable electoral prospect in Scotland.

    ... Scottish Labour... could well end up with zero MPs in any snap general election.

    Leonard, who has made zero impression in his almost two years in charge, has not helped his cause. At every test of his leadership he has been found lacking. During his tenure, Labour have arrived at combined positions on independence and Brexit seemingly designed to alienate the maximum number of voters. At times it seemed like he was engaged in some weird avant-garde art project to destroy a political party for fun.

    ...When Lord Ashcroft published a shock poll on Monday showing a majority of Scots back independence, Labour didn’t even bother issuing an official response. Few observers noticed the omission and even fewer cared. Labour’s opinion on the biggest Scottish political news story of the summer was, frankly, irrelevant.”

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labours-uk-leadership-realised-winning-18859075.amp
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 3,210
    ydoethur said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    In fairness, Trump is rather more than 'a bit' of a twat.

    But you're right, for impeachment to work they have to show something either illegal or unconstitutional that he's done.

    Otherwise, they're left with the 25th Amendment.

    But as long as Mike Pence is Vice-President neither seems exactly likely. If Romney or Ryan were VP I think there is a good chance an excuse to act would have been found before now.
    They'd impeach him knowing they'd fail to actually remove him
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218
    On topic: I agree with @Tissue_Price that this is a good bet at odds of 5.7 or so. It would probably be a political mistake on the part of the Dems, but it's one they are fairly likely to make.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,913
    ydoethur said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    In fairness, Trump is rather more than 'a bit' of a twat.

    But you're right, for impeachment to work they have to show something either illegal or unconstitutional that he's done.

    Otherwise, they're left with the 25th Amendment.

    But as long as Mike Pence is Vice-President neither seems exactly likely. If Romney or Ryan were VP I think there is a good chance an excuse to act would have been found before now.
    Per the Mueller hearings, the case would probably be obstruction of justice (which was one of the two charges against Clinton).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    ydoethur said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    In fairness, Trump is rather more than 'a bit' of a twat.

    But you're right, for impeachment to work they have to show something either illegal or unconstitutional that he's done.

    Otherwise, they're left with the 25th Amendment.

    But as long as Mike Pence is Vice-President neither seems exactly likely. If Romney or Ryan were VP I think there is a good chance an excuse to act would have been found before now.
    Watch this case, which will be interesting:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/house-judiciary-committee-sues-don-mcgahn-donald-trump-impeachment.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    Gabs2 said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    Inviting a foreign power to hack the US elections? Defunding election security so it can happen again? Nepotism in appointments? Perverting government policy to benefit his own business? Breaking federal law in detaining migrants in inhumane conditions? Refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations?
    The first is a suspicion, an allegation. Hard proof would be needed.
    The second ditto
    The third isn't a crime in itself, although arguably it should be
    The fourth is difficult to lay solely at Trump's door
    With regard to the fifth, investigations are ongoing and actually the powers of Congress to investigate are quite limited. For example, it seems unlikely that the investigation into Trump's business interests or financial arrangements will get very far because that's investigation into an individual which Congress isn't meant to do. If however the intelligence enquiry turned up something there would more likely be impeachment on that than on Trump's failure to co-operate.
  • If you have a weak constitution, scroll past this post.

    Most weeks in Popbitch we include an example of nominative determinism, which is where a person's name matches up pleasingly with the thing that they're best known for.

    Things are slightly different this week, insofar as this one is not pleasing in the slightest.

    Spotted in the Boots on Victoria Street on Monday, buying what looked like a box of 12 'Thin Feel' Durex?

    Dominic Cummings.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 1,061
    I think the Dems would need to act very quickly or miss the boat. Any impeachment process would take several months and they wouldn't want it to overshadow their primary process.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,075
    If the Democrats were to go for it, when would be best for them to do so? I’d have thought they’d want to do it as late as possible, so that it is either hanging over Donald Trump while the public is thinking about its vote or the Senate has obviously whitewashed. So maybe, but not yet.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,259

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    Obstruction of justice.

    The Mueller report lays out multiple occasions of corroborated obstruction of justice.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883
    That's handy. Cos that's exactly the opposite of what Cummings et al are asking folk to vote for.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630

    On topic: I agree with @Tissue_Price that this is a good bet at odds of 5.7 or so. It would probably be a political mistake on the part of the Dems, but it's one they are fairly likely to make.

    I'm not convinced it would be a mistake.
    If nothing else, it would expand considerably the effectiveness of their subpoena powers, and their powers to question witnesses.

    It could go either way, depending upon the discipline with which any proceedings might be conducted.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,607
    I think we can all agree: when VAT on hot sausage rolls was the most rocking political issue of the day seems like a long time ago.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514

    ydoethur said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    In fairness, Trump is rather more than 'a bit' of a twat.

    But you're right, for impeachment to work they have to show something either illegal or unconstitutional that he's done.

    Otherwise, they're left with the 25th Amendment.

    But as long as Mike Pence is Vice-President neither seems exactly likely. If Romney or Ryan were VP I think there is a good chance an excuse to act would have been found before now.
    Per the Mueller hearings, the case would probably be obstruction of justice (which was one of the two charges against Clinton).
    And which he was cleared of along with the charge of perjury.

    The problem is not putting forward charges in Trump's case. There's an awful lot of dodgy stuff that we know leads back to him because that's the only logical conclusion (cf Nixon and Watergate). But proving it to the standard (a) required and (b) sufficient to make Pence look a more attractive option is going to be hard.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,432

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.

    I came back from Paris on the Eurostar on Sunday and the queues for EU passports at the Gare du Nord were horrendous - non-EU, on the other hand, had no queue at all.

    I think I have discovered the first positive advantage of leaving the EU.
    This shows another Remain mistake imo. Saying to poorer Leave voters that the main impact of Brexit is that some rich kids will have to queue on their way to their third or fourth sun-and-sex holiday of the year will not cut it. And skiing is just a different language.

    Though tbh I've never really understood why it is necessary to queue to show passports to prove that you do not need to show your passport. Especially since they must know where the train or plane has just come from.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,913
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    In fairness, Trump is rather more than 'a bit' of a twat.

    But you're right, for impeachment to work they have to show something either illegal or unconstitutional that he's done.

    Otherwise, they're left with the 25th Amendment.

    But as long as Mike Pence is Vice-President neither seems exactly likely. If Romney or Ryan were VP I think there is a good chance an excuse to act would have been found before now.
    Per the Mueller hearings, the case would probably be obstruction of justice (which was one of the two charges against Clinton).
    And which he was cleared of along with the charge of perjury.

    The problem is not putting forward charges in Trump's case. There's an awful lot of dodgy stuff that we know leads back to him because that's the only logical conclusion (cf Nixon and Watergate). But proving it to the standard (a) required and (b) sufficient to make Pence look a more attractive option is going to be hard.
    There's not going to be a real attempt to "prove" anything. The Senate will (presumably) vote against on party lines. The question is what the impact of the trial would be.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514

    If you have a weak constitution, scroll past this post.

    At first I thought this conversation would be about the USA.

    Then I realised I'd misunderstood the word 'constitution.'
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    dixiedean said:

    That's handy. Cos that's exactly the opposite of what Cummings et al are asking folk to vote for.
    I wonder if Cummings has any Nick Timothy-esque bombshells lined up for the manifesto. Something like replacing NHS nurses with robots, or using AI to imprison potential criminals before they commit any crimes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630

    If the Democrats were to go for it, when would be best for them to do so? I’d have thought they’d want to do it as late as possible, so that it is either hanging over Donald Trump while the public is thinking about its vote or the Senate has obviously whitewashed. So maybe, but not yet.

    It took around three months to go from the start of impeachment proceedings to handing it over for trial in the Senate, when the Republicans took a shot at Clinton. And the Republicans have made it clear they'd keep any Senate trial as brief as they possibly could.
    So end of spring, early summer next year ?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,217
    dixiedean said:

    That's handy. Cos that's exactly the opposite of what Cummings et al are asking folk to vote for.
    "Our research suggests a widespread feeling that choice and autonomy have gone too far, and voters are looking for stronger community and a sense of belonging instead" would be the ideal first sentence of an announcement by a fascist government that General Elections have been suspended indefinitely. A frighteningly anti democratic thing to say.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,131

    I think we can all agree: when VAT on hot sausage rolls was the most rocking political issue of the day seems like a long time ago.

    Bring back The Quad and their excellent stewardship of the economy - all is forgiven.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    In fairness, Trump is rather more than 'a bit' of a twat.

    But you're right, for impeachment to work they have to show something either illegal or unconstitutional that he's done.

    Otherwise, they're left with the 25th Amendment.

    But as long as Mike Pence is Vice-President neither seems exactly likely. If Romney or Ryan were VP I think there is a good chance an excuse to act would have been found before now.
    Per the Mueller hearings, the case would probably be obstruction of justice (which was one of the two charges against Clinton).
    And which he was cleared of along with the charge of perjury.

    The problem is not putting forward charges in Trump's case. There's an awful lot of dodgy stuff that we know leads back to him because that's the only logical conclusion (cf Nixon and Watergate). But proving it to the standard (a) required and (b) sufficient to make Pence look a more attractive option is going to be hard.
    There's not going to be a real attempt to "prove" anything. The Senate will (presumably) vote against on party lines. The question is what the impact of the trial would be.
    Ultimately, to strengthen Trump. As Clinton showed, unless you have clear evidence of a crime most voters take seriously, the easy way out is to paint your opponents as vindictive and boosts your popularity. And Trump is ridiculously good at playing the poor victim against the establishment (after all, how is a billionaire without two brain cells to rub together who makes money from luxury hotels supposed to be a member of the governing class)?

    And even if it worked - President Pence? Hardly a great improvement. He might not rant on Twitter every three minutes but he's just as batshit crazy as Trump.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218
    Nigelb said:

    On topic: I agree with @Tissue_Price that this is a good bet at odds of 5.7 or so. It would probably be a political mistake on the part of the Dems, but it's one they are fairly likely to make.

    I'm not convinced it would be a mistake.
    If nothing else, it would expand considerably the effectiveness of their subpoena powers, and their powers to question witnesses.

    It could go either way, depending upon the discipline with which any proceedings might be conducted.
    It would please their base, and delight all those people who think Trump is an abomination and a disgrace to his office, and generally play very well with voters who would never vote for Trump in a million years. It would also firm up support for Trump amongst those who think he's standing up to the liberal metropolitan elite. The biggest danger is that it would be a displacement activity, distracting from any positive Dem message and crowding out the issues of healthcare and the economic effects of Trump's mad trade wars.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,432

    If you have a weak constitution, scroll past this post.

    Most weeks in Popbitch we include an example of nominative determinism, which is where a person's name matches up pleasingly with the thing that they're best known for.

    Things are slightly different this week, insofar as this one is not pleasing in the slightest.

    Spotted in the Boots on Victoria Street on Monday, buying what looked like a box of 12 'Thin Feel' Durex?

    Dominic Cummings.

    Old joke: the assistant asked Dominic "small, medium or large," and gave him a box of 100.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 27,689
    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.
  • dixiedean said:

    That's handy. Cos that's exactly the opposite of what Cummings et al are asking folk to vote for.
    I wonder if Cummings has any Nick Timothy-esque bombshells lined up for the manifesto. Something like replacing NHS nurses with robots, or using AI to imprison potential criminals before they commit any crimes.
    I was told Cummings was a supporter of this idea when Steve Hilton proposed this.

    One of the Prime Minister's closest aides proposed "cloud-bursting technology" to give Britons more sunshine and less rain, it was revealed today.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/how-number-10-blue-sky-thinker-planned-to-bring-on-the-sunshine-6427023.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Mr. JS, not so sure about that.

    Trump does have a loyal core of support, but he won by a wafer-thin margin last time and I can't see* floating voters giving him any benefit of the doubt again.

    *Should stress I'm not that up on US politics, but that's what I think.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,586

    If you have a weak constitution, scroll past this post.

    Most weeks in Popbitch we include an example of nominative determinism, which is where a person's name matches up pleasingly with the thing that they're best known for.

    Things are slightly different this week, insofar as this one is not pleasing in the slightest.

    Spotted in the Boots on Victoria Street on Monday, buying what looked like a box of 12 'Thin Feel' Durex?

    Dominic Cummings.

    Until the death of the late Lady Boot the stores in her husbands company did not sell Durex or any other contraceptives.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,432
    OT: damn. I was thanking the heavens I was too busy to put my losing bet on, but now I've just seen the Brighton stewards disqualified the first past the post and gave the race to my pick. Hmm.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218

    dixiedean said:

    That's handy. Cos that's exactly the opposite of what Cummings et al are asking folk to vote for.
    I wonder if Cummings has any Nick Timothy-esque bombshells lined up for the manifesto. Something like replacing NHS nurses with robots, or using AI to imprison potential criminals before they commit any crimes.
    I was told Cummings was a supporter of this idea when Steve Hilton proposed this.

    One of the Prime Minister's closest aides proposed "cloud-bursting technology" to give Britons more sunshine and less rain, it was revealed today.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/how-number-10-blue-sky-thinker-planned-to-bring-on-the-sunshine-6427023.html
    Presumably Steve Hilton took it a bit literally when Cammo asked him for some blue-sky thinking.
  • Apple is the best, everyone else sucks.

    Samsung has a long and illustrious history of trolling Apple in its smartphone commercials. But now the South Korean firm is cloning one of the iPhone features it once mocked, and it has quietly deleted records of the ads.

    Samsung unveiled its Note 10 on Wednesday and, as has been widely observed, the phone falls in line with other new devices on the market in that it does not come with a 3.5 mm headphone jack.


    https://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-ditches-headphone-jack-deletes-apple-trolling-ads-2019-8?r=US&IR=T
  • dixiedean said:

    That's handy. Cos that's exactly the opposite of what Cummings et al are asking folk to vote for.
    I wonder if Cummings has any Nick Timothy-esque bombshells lined up for the manifesto. Something like replacing NHS nurses with robots, or using AI to imprison potential criminals before they commit any crimes.
    I was told Cummings was a supporter of this idea when Steve Hilton proposed this.

    One of the Prime Minister's closest aides proposed "cloud-bursting technology" to give Britons more sunshine and less rain, it was revealed today.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/how-number-10-blue-sky-thinker-planned-to-bring-on-the-sunshine-6427023.html
    Presumably Steve Hilton took it a bit literally when Cammo asked him for some blue-sky thinking.
    Yup.

    Like Hilton, I think Cummings will bugger off elsewhere when he realises his ideas ain't practicable.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218
    This sentence looks too lenient to me, given the increasing threats MPs face:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/08/man-jailed-for-terrifying-threats-to-heidi-allen-over-brexit
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,259
    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I dont see it. Trump is crumbling in the suburbs and even the worst Dem candidate picked this time won't fuck up in the Rust belt like Hilary's team did.

    There was no Trump surge in the rust belt, only a Clinton collapse.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,974
    Just reading earlier discussion re today's YouGov - not sure where posts re Flavible came from.

    In fact, Flavible DOES predict a Con Maj on today's YouGov, albeit only just.

    Con 327, Lab 185, LD 62, SNP 51.

    https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2246
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630

    Nigelb said:

    On topic: I agree with @Tissue_Price that this is a good bet at odds of 5.7 or so. It would probably be a political mistake on the part of the Dems, but it's one they are fairly likely to make.

    I'm not convinced it would be a mistake.
    If nothing else, it would expand considerably the effectiveness of their subpoena powers, and their powers to question witnesses.

    It could go either way, depending upon the discipline with which any proceedings might be conducted.
    It would please their base, and delight all those people who think Trump is an abomination and a disgrace to his office, and generally play very well with voters who would never vote for Trump in a million years. It would also firm up support for Trump amongst those who think he's standing up to the liberal metropolitan elite. The biggest danger is that it would be a displacement activity, distracting from any positive Dem message and crowding out the issues of healthcare and the economic effects of Trump's mad trade wars.
    Given the predilection of politicians for grandstanding in such proceedings, rather than asking focused questions, you're probably right.

    If it were done, it should be planned in the certain knowledge that the Senate will dismiss any charges, and done before the end of the year. Planned properly, by a handful of Cyclefree types (if the Democrats have any such thing) it could be quite effective.
  • All staff holidays cancelled among the the Newcastle United medical department.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    FPT:

    Doesn’t the ‘leave’ bit of the ‘leave the EU’ law have to be separately ‘activated’?

    No. We leave on 31 October, that is the date set in law. It all kicks in automatically at 11pm.
    What about the requirement for parliamentary approval of the terms of our exit?

    There will be court challenges I’m sure.
    Those conditions have been met already. They were met in January.
    Do explain.
    IANAL but I believe the EU (Withdrawal) Act provisions for Parliamentary approval were met in January. Here is the relevant legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13

    In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).

    Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.

    Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.

    This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,324
    For me the Democrats are already too late on this and would risk being damaged by allegations that it was both political and seeking to subvert the democratic process. They should have moved as soon as the Mueller report came out. Instead they dithered and a frankly dishonest AG managed to persuade a lot of people that the report was a lot more neutral than it actually was.

    There is no chance of the impeachment process succeeding on the present material but it could have been used to put a lot of rational and reasonable Republicans in a bit of a spot. But its too late now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,060
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.

    Ireland's pulling out of the CTA?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 741

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.

    I came back from Paris on the Eurostar on Sunday and the queues for EU passports at the Gare du Nord were horrendous - non-EU, on the other hand, had no queue at all.

    I think I have discovered the first positive advantage of leaving the EU.
    If the non-EU Queue is very short you can use it. The problem all the peope in front of you might take 10 minutes each to process.

    Though tbh I've never really understood why it is necessary to queue to show passports to prove that you do not need to show your passport. Especially since they must know where the train or plane has just come from.

    It has nothing to do with "where the train has come from".
    Because the UK is not in Schengen, everyone who enters the UK needs to show their identity (unless travelling from ROI or a British territory where there is a Schengen-like agreement) .

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,324

    FPT:

    Doesn’t the ‘leave’ bit of the ‘leave the EU’ law have to be separately ‘activated’?

    No. We leave on 31 October, that is the date set in law. It all kicks in automatically at 11pm.
    What about the requirement for parliamentary approval of the terms of our exit?

    There will be court challenges I’m sure.
    Those conditions have been met already. They were met in January.
    Do explain.
    IANAL but I believe the EU (Withdrawal) Act provisions for Parliamentary approval were met in January. Here is the relevant legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13

    In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).

    Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.

    Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.

    This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
    I think its actually simpler than that.

    Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.

    We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.

    So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526

    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

    Yes my forecast is Trump Pence v Warren O'Rourke (another Massachusetts Senator and pretty boy Southerner Democratic ticket like 2004) and Trump like Dubya wins a narrow but clear victory in both the popular vote and electoral college
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630

    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

    Perhaps - but you're assuming that the candidate would be either Sanders or Warren.
    Polling tend to show Democrats overall support a more cautious policy:
    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/medicare-for-all-poll-obamacare-public-option-biden_n_5d3f13d1e4b01d8c977f25cf

    Even Warren would likely trim a bit if she secured the nomination. She wants to win.
    Sanders is a wild card, but I don't think he'll get it.

    Immigration is a potentially problematic issue - and climate change a very strong suit for the Democrats, with around two thirds of voters favouring something like the 'green deal'.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    Scott_P said:
    Ms Swinson says thanks. Keep it up Seamus.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526
    edited August 8
    MikeL said:

    Just reading earlier discussion re today's YouGov - not sure where posts re Flavible came from.

    In fact, Flavible DOES predict a Con Maj on today's YouGov, albeit only just.

    Con 327, Lab 185, LD 62, SNP 51.

    https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2246

    That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,060
    ydoethur said:

    Gabs2 said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    Inviting a foreign power to hack the US elections? Defunding election security so it can happen again? Nepotism in appointments? Perverting government policy to benefit his own business? Breaking federal law in detaining migrants in inhumane conditions? Refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations?
    The third isn't a crime in itself, although arguably it should be
    It is, but a separate provision of the US Code specifically exempts presidential appointments to their private office from all legal constraints.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    F1: Mexico to stay on the calendar until at least 2022.

    I have vague but fond memories of backing Bottas for a podium at about 8 there.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,060

    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

    Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    Meanwhile, three local by-elections today:

    Cambridge: LibDem defence, looks safe
    East Northants: Con who defected to Lab resigned, looks like Con hold/regain
    Worcester: Con defence, looks a good chance of another LibDem gain
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    rpjs said:

    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

    Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
    Thanks. Let's hope Dems come up with something that doesn't put people off.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    Remarkable lack of movement through a period of such political drama.

    I wonder who YouGov is asking nowadays; I've been on their panel for ages and used to get VI questions now and again, but they stopped asking me a couple of years back.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    rpjs said:

    ydoethur said:

    Gabs2 said:

    I've never quite got what exactly they're going to impeach Trump for. Being a bit of a twat? Is that really impeachable?

    Inviting a foreign power to hack the US elections? Defunding election security so it can happen again? Nepotism in appointments? Perverting government policy to benefit his own business? Breaking federal law in detaining migrants in inhumane conditions? Refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations?
    The third isn't a crime in itself, although arguably it should be
    It is, but a separate provision of the US Code specifically exempts presidential appointments to their private office from all legal constraints.
    Which is why it isn't, but arguably it should be.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    DavidL said:

    FPT:

    Doesn’t the ‘leave’ bit of the ‘leave the EU’ law have to be separately ‘activated’?

    No. We leave on 31 October, that is the date set in law. It all kicks in automatically at 11pm.
    What about the requirement for parliamentary approval of the terms of our exit?

    There will be court challenges I’m sure.
    Those conditions have been met already. They were met in January.
    Do explain.
    IANAL but I believe the EU (Withdrawal) Act provisions for Parliamentary approval were met in January. Here is the relevant legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13

    In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).

    Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.

    Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.

    This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
    I think its actually simpler than that.

    Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.

    We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.

    So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
    Well put. It is quite simple.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    edited August 8
    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    Just reading earlier discussion re today's YouGov - not sure where posts re Flavible came from.

    In fact, Flavible DOES predict a Con Maj on today's YouGov, albeit only just.

    Con 327, Lab 185, LD 62, SNP 51.

    https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2246

    That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
    Flavible have BXP winning Thurrock and Hartlepool, and a striking string of LibDem gains through south, west and central London.

    A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Mr. B2, polarisation and hurling of insults leading to entrenched opinions, perhaps?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,075

    Scott_P said:
    Ms Swinson says thanks. Keep it up Seamus.
    So Labour is going to negotiate a new exit deal with the EU, all the while keeping open the option that it might campaign in a referendum against its own deal? Run that one by me again.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,217
    rpjs said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.

    Ireland's pulling out of the CTA?
    The CTA provides that we are members of the EU?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    DavidL said:

    FPT:

    Doesn’t the ‘leave’ bit of the ‘leave the EU’ law have to be separately ‘activated’?

    No. We leave on 31 October, that is the date set in law. It all kicks in automatically at 11pm.
    What about the requirement for parliamentary approval of the terms of our exit?

    There will be court challenges I’m sure.
    Those conditions have been met already. They were met in January.
    Do explain.
    IANAL but I believe the EU (Withdrawal) Act provisions for Parliamentary approval were met in January. Here is the relevant legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13

    In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).

    Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.

    Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.

    This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
    I think its actually simpler than that.

    Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.

    We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.

    So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
    Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.

    It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 699
    I was wondering if anyone on this forum has any opinions on this Brexit thing?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    Just reading earlier discussion re today's YouGov - not sure where posts re Flavible came from.

    In fact, Flavible DOES predict a Con Maj on today's YouGov, albeit only just.

    Con 327, Lab 185, LD 62, SNP 51.

    https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2246

    That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
    Flavible have BXP winning Thurrock and Hartlepool, and a striking string of LibDem gains through south, west and central London.

    A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
    Yup, I think Emily Thornberry could be the LD scalp of the night
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 1,061
    rpjs said:

    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

    Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
    And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).

    It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,131

    Scott_P said:
    Ms Swinson says thanks. Keep it up Seamus.
    So Labour is going to negotiate a new exit deal with the EU, all the while keeping open the option that it might campaign in a referendum against its own deal? Run that one by me again.
    We're passed peak voters caring about Labour's silly Brexit policy. They cared for a bit - but they got over it.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/08/02/new-comres-poll-with-lab-in-lead-might-put-the-mockers-on-an-early-election/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    DougSeal said:

    I was wondering if anyone on this forum has any opinions on this Brexit thing?

    I've given up on it.

    Anyway, it's a lot more fun taking the piss out of that egomaniacal retard Dominic Cummings.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,075
    DougSeal said:

    I was wondering if anyone on this forum has any opinions on this Brexit thing?

    I'm not sure I've heard enough about it to form a view, could you recap the important points for me?
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,131
    DougSeal said:

    I was wondering if anyone on this forum has any opinions on this Brexit thing?

    And it was all going so well.

    Go on then - tell us leavers why we're stupid and incompetent voters.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    edited August 8
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    Just reading earlier discussion re today's YouGov - not sure where posts re Flavible came from.

    In fact, Flavible DOES predict a Con Maj on today's YouGov, albeit only just.

    Con 327, Lab 185, LD 62, SNP 51.

    https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2246

    That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
    Flavible have BXP winning Thurrock and Hartlepool, and a striking string of LibDem gains through south, west and central London.

    A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
    Yup, I think Emily Thornberry could be the LD scalp of the night
    So you see the merit of Flavible now? ;)

    They are at least attempting to forecast the results that will 'surprise' next time (compared to expectations based on conventional swing) - just as Mansfield, Canterbury and Kensington did last time. It's quite clear the next election won't be a straight swing election.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,009
    IanB2 said:

    Remarkable lack of movement through a period of such political drama.

    I wonder who YouGov is asking nowadays; I've been on their panel for ages and used to get VI questions now and again, but they stopped asking me a couple of years back.
    I suspect this lack of movement reflects a general disengagement from the issue, and from politics generally. Anecdotally I'm surprised by the number of people who tell me they have stopped following the news because its all Brexit and they are bored with the topic.

    I'm also a yougov panel member but I seem to have received surveys much less frequently in the past few months.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 4,522
    The polling seems to consistently suggest that a narrow majority think Brexit was a mistake; that they would not vote for it given the chance again; but that they still think it should be carried out.

    I think this should be born in mind when there is loose talk about “the will of the people”.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584
    DougSeal said:

    I was wondering if anyone on this forum has any opinions on this Brexit thing?

    It crops up every now and again. Didn't we leave a few years ago? I seem to remember a bus or something... :)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,324
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT:

    IANAL but I believe the EU (Withdrawal) Act provisions for Parliamentary approval were met in January. Here is the relevant legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13

    In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).

    Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.

    Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.

    This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
    I think its actually simpler than that.

    Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.

    We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.

    So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
    Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.

    It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
    If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630

    DougSeal said:

    I was wondering if anyone on this forum has any opinions on this Brexit thing?

    I'm not sure I've heard enough about it to form a view, could you recap the important points for me?
    There's a point ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    edited August 8

    rpjs said:

    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

    Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
    And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).

    It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
    In 2016 the USA spent 17% of its GDP on healthcare (source: World Bank) yet 27 million Americans has no health insurance of any kind (source: KFF) - and since Trump came to office that number has climbed steadily.

    In the same year, the UK spent 9.76% of GDP on healthcare and had universal coverage.

    I think it is fair to say there is room for improvement in the efficiency of US spending. Indeed not that long ago there was a suggestion an NHS would be needed to save them money because their system is simply unaffordable.

    Sources: Health Spending as a proportion of GDP, World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS

    Kaiser Family Foundation, Key Facts about the Uninsured Population, https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    edited August 8
    IanB2 said:

    Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.

    It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.

    I think you'll find it was Remainers who were getting most excitable about the idea there could be a proroguation. Boris never said he'd do it, he just didn't rule it out. Since then Remainers have thrown away their only chance to bring down Boris before its too late [short of installing Corbyn into Downing Street] and it looks like we won't need to do any such thing.

    Parliament has approved no deal yet. It has approved leaving on 31 October. The only way to rule out a negative is to do something positive, unless Parliament ratifies a deal in the remaining days then Parliament by definition has not approved a deal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526
    edited August 8
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    Just reading earlier discussion re today's YouGov - not sure where posts re Flavible came from.

    In fact, Flavible DOES predict a Con Maj on today's YouGov, albeit only just.

    Con 327, Lab 185, LD 62, SNP 51.

    https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2246

    That would be the lowest number of seats won by Labour since 1935 (coupled with the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918), appalling result for Corbyn Labour but the best LD result since 2005 (as well as a narrow Tory majority and SNP back close to 2015 level)
    Flavible have BXP winning Thurrock and Hartlepool, and a striking string of LibDem gains through south, west and central London.

    A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
    Yup, I think Emily Thornberry could be the LD scalp of the night
    So you see the merit of Flavible now? ;)

    They are at least attempting to forecast the results that will 'surprise' next time (compared to expectations based on conventional swing) - just as Mansfield, Canterbury and Kensington did last time. It's quite clear the next election won't be a straight swing election.
    Maybe but even Electoral Calculus has Thornberry losing her seat to the LDs on today's Yougov

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=31&LAB=22&LIB=21&Brexit=14&Green=7&UKIP=2&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,075
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT:

    IANAL but I believe the EU (Withdrawal) Act provisions for Parliamentary approval were met in January. Here is the relevant legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13

    In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).

    Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.

    Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.

    This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
    I think its actually simpler than that.

    Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.

    We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.

    So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
    Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.

    It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
    If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
    That appears to be where we're headed right now, in my view.

    To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT:

    IANAL but I believe the EU (Withdrawal) Act provisions for Parliamentary approval were met in January. Here is the relevant legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13

    In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).

    Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.

    Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.

    This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
    I think its actually simpler than that.

    Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.

    We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.

    So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
    Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.

    It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
    If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
    That was always the ultimate goal of Grieve and co. They should stop pratting about and just table that motion.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    There is an interview with Sam Cam in last Sunday's Times magazine. She is photographed (with her sister) in the Cameron's London flat/house. On the bookshelf behind her is the title:

    "Why nations fail"

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 4,522

    There is an interview with Sam Cam in last Sunday's Times magazine. She is photographed (with her sister) in the Cameron's London flat/house. On the bookshelf behind her is the title:

    "Why nations fail"

    I wonder if Call Me Dave still thinks Brexit was “a mistake, not a disaster”.

    No wonder he is keeping a low profile.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT:

    IANAL but I believe the EU (Withdrawal) Act provisions for Parliamentary approval were met in January. Here is the relevant legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13

    In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).

    Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.

    Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.

    This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
    I think its actually simpler than that.

    snip

    So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
    Parliament has various levers it can attempt to pull to *encourage* a PM to seek an extension and to make the government's life difficult if we leave without a deal. Whether these would pass and whether they would work as incentives is up for debate. But to suggest there is nothing they can do is probably wrong.

    It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
    If Parliament wants to stop us leaving on 31st October they need to order the government to revoke. Nothing else is likely, let alone guaranteed, to work.
    That was always the ultimate goal of Grieve and co. They should stop pratting about and just table that motion.
    Order to revoke via motion? I am probably wrong but I understood that only way to stop No Deal (other than GE etc etc) was to pass legislation. A motion has no legal affect.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    ydoethur said:

    rpjs said:

    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

    Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
    And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).

    It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
    In 2016 the USA spent 17% of its GDP on healthcare (source: World Bank) yet 27 million Americans has no health insurance of any kind (source: KFF) - and since Trump came to office that number has climbed steadily.

    In the same year, the UK spent 9.76% of GDP on healthcare and had universal coverage.

    I think it is fair to say there is room for improvement in the efficiency of US spending. Indeed not that long ago there was a suggestion an NHS would be needed to save them money because their system is simply unaffordable.

    Sources: Health Spending as a proportion of GDP, World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS

    Kaiser Family Foundation, Key Facts about the Uninsured Population, https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
    Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.

    There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.

    Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584
    rpjs said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Just arrived in Dublin's fair city and realised that is the last time I go through the EU passports channel there. Thanks, arseholes.

    Ireland's pulling out of the CTA?
    Ireland's membership of the CTA has no bearing to @Ishmael_Z 's point about going thru EU customs channels.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,580

    Scott_P said:
    Ms Swinson says thanks. Keep it up Seamus.
    So Labour is going to negotiate a new exit deal with the EU, all the while keeping open the option that it might campaign in a referendum against its own deal? Run that one by me again.
    It's nonsensical.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 4,522

    ydoethur said:

    rpjs said:

    AndyJS said:

    The Dems need to pull their finger out because at the moment Trump is heading for another election victory IMO.

    I'm certainly very nervous. All this talk of closing down private health insurance and going fully public is going to cost them with swing voters I think.

    Not necessarily. A lot of Americans are finding their private insurance to be increasingly unaffordable, and all the GOP can offer is bringing back junk insurance that is affordable but gives practically no benefit. Existing Medicare for over-65s allows for private sector "top-up" plans and I'd bet the final proposal for "Medicare for all" which the Dem candidate next year will be running on will include the same.
    And what about the cost? Ultimately, if you extend free healthcare further to poor Americans then middle class Americans will surely have to pay more (either directly or indirectly).

    It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
    In 2016 the USA spent 17% of its GDP on healthcare (source: World Bank) yet 27 million Americans has no health insurance of any kind (source: KFF) - and since Trump came to office that number has climbed steadily.

    In the same year, the UK spent 9.76% of GDP on healthcare and had universal coverage.

    I think it is fair to say there is room for improvement in the efficiency of US spending. Indeed not that long ago there was a suggestion an NHS would be needed to save them money because their system is simply unaffordable.

    Sources: Health Spending as a proportion of GDP, World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS

    Kaiser Family Foundation, Key Facts about the Uninsured Population, https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
    Despite people's beliefs that it is, the US system is most definitely not a free market system.

    There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.

    Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.
    You’re just a shill for “socialised medicine”.
This discussion has been closed.