Briefly on topic, I think B&R will be a LibDem win, but an unconvincing one. I think the local MP is broadly popular, and the Brexit Party may well be the dog that didn't bite. I'm going for:
LD 40% Con 35% BXP 15%
The history tells you the seat wasn't a Liberal or LD seat until Richard Livsey won it in 1985. It was for a very long time a Labour seat and was only taken by the Conservatives in 1979.
In 1985, at the by-election, the Liberal candidate only just got home against Labour with the Conservatives third on nearly 28% and the truth is there has always been a solid Conservative vote in the seat - whether and the extent to which that is diluted by the coming of TBP remains to be seen.
Livsey held by 46 in 1987 and lost by 130 in 1992 so it's been that close.
The current Conservative majority and vote share compares well to the high water mark of 1983 but is still beatable as 1985 showed. As for the LDs, their best vote share was 46.4% in 2010.
The question for me and what will determine the outcome is not what happens to the Conservative vote but what happens to the near 18% Labour vote. If that breaks tactically to Jane Dodds, I think she will win but if not it will be very close.
I predicted a 5,000 LD majority two or three weeks back - I think 2,000 - 3,000 now more likely.
The reason that Labour were much stronger in this seat in the past is that the traditional county of Breconshire included a number of former industrial areas like Beaufort and Llanelly Hills that were moved into Blaenau Gwent in the 70s.
I suspect that Ystradgynlais in the South West (a former coal mining area) has a strong traditional Labour support which might be more resistent to the Lib Dems.
The only way for Labour MPs like Sarah Champion and Caroline Flint actively to ensure a No Deal Brexit would be to refuse to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would mean they lose the Labour whip and so would no longer be Labour MPs. In this way, they would not only inflict severe and sustained harm on the constituents they say they care about, they would also lose their jobs come the next election and any influence they may have to influence future events.
There is a madness at play currently in this country everywhere that you look. And it's hard to see how it ends. But of all the madness there is, Labour MPs supporting a No Deal are perhaps the most insane of all (Kate Hoey does not count, she is UKIP).
The only way to judge the true feeling of the population is to have a Referendum on the course of action the UK takes: This would be Leave with No Deal, the Government of the days Deal or stay with the current benefits of EU membership.
People keep going on about the 17.4 million but that is no way near a majority of the population, which is heading for 70 million. Fifty million UK citizens did not vote for Brexit!
Is it that incendiary? Surely a Queen's Speech is long overdue?
Since the start of the twentieth century there have been annual State Opening's of Parliament every single year with only 2011 and 2018 being cancelled altogether [three times in the early 20th century it was brought forward]. We haven't yet had a 2019 one with the last one in 2017 so this is highly irregular and when it does finally occur it will be long, long overdue.
A new Parliamentary session is required - using the timing to avoid Parliamentary oversight is however a different matter...
Using the timing to avoid parliament imposing a different Brexit policy on the government is another matter again. And using it to avoid a VoNC raises it to yet another, higher, level.
I've no doubt that if the government tried to impose No Deal by parliamentary sleight of hand, a No Confidence motion would be brought. That vote would surely have to be taken.
I do think that the prorogation debate is something of a false one. Apart from a VoNC, what exactly can parliament do to stop a No Deal Brexit, when it's already legislated for and when the Commons doesn't have control of the House's business?
The only way for Labour MPs like Sarah Champion and Caroline Flint actively to ensure a No Deal Brexit would be to refuse to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would mean they lose the Labour whip and so would no longer be Labour MPs. In this way, they would not only inflict severe and sustained harm on the constituents they say they care about, they would also lose their jobs come the next election and any influence they may have to influence future events.
There is a madness at play currently in this country everywhere that you look. And it's hard to see how it ends. But of all the madness there is, Labour MPs supporting a No Deal are perhaps the most insane of all (Kate Hoey does not count, she is UKIP).
Although the madness of ERG being the ones who stopped us leaving is right up there.
If you'd said DUP, you'd have had a point. But by saying ERG, you just look a bit dim....
Jeremy Corbyn's cognitive dissonance is such that he genuinely thinks he is an anti-racist and despises racism wherever he sees or finds it while at the same time believing the Jews are responsible for many of life's ills and injustices and hence not included in the category of people against whom one could be racist.
There's no real evidence Corbyn gives a damn about Jews either way. It's Israel he has a problem with.
So he only has a problem with 6m Jews and the world's only Jewish state.
Is it that incendiary? Surely a Queen's Speech is long overdue?
Since the start of the twentieth century there have been annual State Opening's of Parliament every single year with only 2011 and 2018 being cancelled altogether [three times in the early 20th century it was brought forward]. We haven't yet had a 2019 one with the last one in 2017 so this is highly irregular and when it does finally occur it will be long, long overdue.
A new Parliamentary session is required - using the timing to avoid Parliamentary oversight is however a different matter...
A new Parliamentary session, as is required, timed for a few months after the new PM is elected and trailed months in advance seems to be entirely reasonable.
The only way for Labour MPs like Sarah Champion and Caroline Flint actively to ensure a No Deal Brexit would be to refuse to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would mean they lose the Labour whip and so would no longer be Labour MPs. In this way, they would not only inflict severe and sustained harm on the constituents they say they care about, they would also lose their jobs come the next election and any influence they may have to influence future events.
There is a madness at play currently in this country everywhere that you look. And it's hard to see how it ends. But of all the madness there is, Labour MPs supporting a No Deal are perhaps the most insane of all (Kate Hoey does not count, she is UKIP).
The only way to judge the true feeling of the population is to have a Referendum on the course of action the UK takes: This would be Leave with No Deal, the Government of the days Deal or stay with the current benefits of EU membership.
People keep going on about the 17.4 million but that is no way near a majority of the population, which is heading for 70 million. Fifty million UK citizens did not vote for Brexit!
If they didn't bother voting, their opinion does not matter. As for prisoners in for life, or two year-olds...
Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.
Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.
But over 1.5 million are now part-time self employed. How much of that is voluntary? Very different to the mid-1970s.
Also how many million on zero hours contracts
The statistics say very few.
There were estimated to be around 780,000 people employed on zero hours contracts as their main job between April and June 2018. That's roughly 2.4% of people in employment, or about one in 40 workers.
So answer your own question then. How many million?
Since you are too stupid to work it out 0.78 Million, does that help you. 1 in 40 and not anywhere near the hardly any you purported. Not only did I answer your stupid question , I now have to spell out the numbers for you. PS : can you provide any statistical evidence to support your "statistics say very few".
"How many million" - "very few [million]".
0.78 million is below a million so very few millions.
Had you not used the word million in your question the answer would have been different.
That's not the way we speak English over here. God if even Malc gets this what hope is there for anyone else.
Yes it is. Incidentally one could argue that 2.4% is very few anyway.
You can read what you like into polls at the moment, my main take is that Harris' massive betting favoritism over the other big 3 is undeserved.
The Iowa number for Buttigieg is extraordinary. But it shouldn't surprise us that Buttigieg is doing well there: Iowa is whiter and more religious than the typical US state, and Buttigieg is (so to speak) whiter and more religious than the typical Democratic nominee.
What all the recent polls, though, show is that the more voters see of Biden, the less impressed they are with him. The last five polls have seen Biden get (in order) 30%, 27%, 24%, 17% and 16%. Change Research has shown Biden dropping from 27% to 16% in a month.
Unless someone pulls ahead properly (and a lot of road to go), if I have understood things, there are so many proportional awards across the primaries that we will be heading to contested convention.
Probably best to go with whoever is winning at that point
Is it that incendiary? Surely a Queen's Speech is long overdue?
Since the start of the twentieth century there have been annual State Opening's of Parliament every single year with only 2011 and 2018 being cancelled altogether [three times in the early 20th century it was brought forward]. We haven't yet had a 2019 one with the last one in 2017 so this is highly irregular and when it does finally occur it will be long, long overdue.
A new Parliamentary session is required - using the timing to avoid Parliamentary oversight is however a different matter...
Using the timing to avoid parliament imposing a different Brexit policy on the government is another matter again. And using it to avoid a VoNC raises it to yet another, higher, level.
I've no doubt that if the government tried to impose No Deal by parliamentary sleight of hand, a No Confidence motion would be brought. That vote would surely have to be taken.
I do think that the prorogation debate is something of a false one. Apart from a VoNC, what exactly can parliament do to stop a No Deal Brexit, when it's already legislated for and when the Commons doesn't have control of the House's business?
If a proroguation is scheduled in advance to occur and then a Queen's Speech is scheduled in advance then I don't see it as dodging a VoNC. The MPs can table the VoNC before the scheduled proroguation.
You can read what you like into polls at the moment, my main take is that Harris' massive betting favoritism over the other big 3 is undeserved.
I tend to agree re Harris: she's in a strong position, but not that strong a position. Here's the thing: the eventual nominee almost certainly has to win one of the first four states - Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
Buttigieg stands a good chance in Iowa, and an OK one in New Hampshire. (Especially as he would get a big boost from winning Iowa.) But he's a pretty terrible candidate for South Carolina, and only a so-so one for Nevada.
Harris is likely weak in Iowa, and only moderately OK in New Hampshire. Her best hope is if Biden flops in Iowa and NH, in which case she likely cleans up in South Carolina.
Warren's best hope is a strong second in Iowa followed by winning in NH. She'll struggle in SC, but then could easily win in Nevada.
Biden, Biden, Biden. If he comes in fourth or fifth in Iowa, can he recover? His best hope is to beat Harris there and in NH, giving him the shot at South Carolina. But the more voters see of Sleepy Joe, the less impressed they are.
Sanders. If he gets beat by Warren in Iowa and New Hampshire (and I think he will), then it's hard to see where he goes from there.
Not at all. England scored the runs completed by the batsmen (2) plus the allowance for the boundary (4). Simon Taufel seemingly doesn't understand how commas work.
It's almost like the cricketing version of the Theresa May exit date market on Betfair...
I’d always thought you got the completed runs from the original play plus the four overthrows. It had never occurred to me that there was doubt as to when the overthrow begins. As far as I was aware it was once the ball went past the stumps.
You can read what you like into polls at the moment, my main take is that Harris' massive betting favoritism over the other big 3 is undeserved.
The Iowa number for Buttigieg is extraordinary. But it shouldn't surprise us that Buttigieg is doing well there: Iowa is whiter and more religious than the typical US state, and Buttigieg is (so to speak) whiter and more religious than the typical Democratic nominee.
What all the recent polls, though, show is that the more voters see of Biden, the less impressed they are with him. The last five polls have seen Biden get (in order) 30%, 27%, 24%, 17% and 16%. Change Research has shown Biden dropping from 27% to 16% in a month.
Unless someone pulls ahead properly (and a lot of road to go), if I have understood things, there are so many proportional awards across the primaries that we will be heading to contested convention.
Primaries tend to end up winnowing down pretty quickly. Already, there are only really five and a half candidates. (And if it wasn't for the Iowa poll, I think you might say it was four and two halves.) Look at how Beto's fundraising has collapsed. If you don't win in an early state, you won't have the money to campaign, and you won't get the airtime.
The other thing to remember is that there's usually a 5% floor for getting delegates. This means that there are more than a dozen candidates who will get exactly no delegates in Iowa or New Hampshire, and who will be dropping out before Super Tuesday.
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
The only way for Labour MPs like Sarah Champion and Caroline Flint actively to ensure a No Deal Brexit would be to refuse to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would mean they lose the Labour whip and so would no longer be Labour MPs. In this way, they would not only inflict severe and sustained harm on the constituents they say they care about, they would also lose their jobs come the next election and any influence they may have to influence future events.
There is a madness at play currently in this country everywhere that you look. And it's hard to see how it ends. But of all the madness there is, Labour MPs supporting a No Deal are perhaps the most insane of all (Kate Hoey does not count, she is UKIP).
Although the madness of ERG being the ones who stopped us leaving is right up there.
If you'd said DUP, you'd have had a point. But by saying ERG, you just look a bit dim....
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
Nah, we recognise those who can't allow the English the tiniest scintilla of sporting happiness when we see it.
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
The polish isn't coming off the English victory at all. Some visceral opponents of England are smearing themselves in the shit of a fantasy technicality to try to rob them of the victory.
Can anyone (not HYUFD or Phillip Thompson please) explain to me the interrelation of the current position whereby we are set to leave the EU on October 31st and the legal requirement for Parliament to pass the Withdrawal Agreement?
And on a related point, can the EU extend the deadline without a formal request from the British PM?
Please just factual answers. Not what you 'hope' the position is.
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
The polish isn't coming off the English victory at all. Some visceral opponents of England are smearing themselves in the shit of a fantasy technicality to try to rob them of the victory.
There's clips on twitter of some wides that were harshly given against the England bowlers in the final and some that should have been given to England, there's no polish coming off this victory.
Pretty much every cricket fan I know (of every full member nation) said it was the greatest game of ODI cricket ever.
Cricket, like rugby union, is one of the most civilised sports between fans, that's why we don't have segregated seating for international matches.
Stick to politics Stuart. You clearly know nothing about cricket and are making rather a fool of yourself with the transparent trolling.
Of course I know nothing about cricket. I have not voiced an opinion one way or the other, and do not intend to do so (life’s too short). However, I’m assuming that the sport correspondent of the Daily Telegraph might know a thing or two about cricket. Feel free to believe what you want to believe, but there is now a serious doubt clouding the win, just as most of the world remains unconvinced that the Russian linesman made a correct decision in 1966.
However, most would agree that you did deserve to be rugby world champions, so well done you.
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
I think that's a stretch!! Cricket is not a big enough sport for it to change the national mood in England beyond a short uplift - and that seems to be what has happened. I also think most people realise we were very lucky to win the final itself. But we won it. Luck is an integral part of sport. The only possible downer is that we beat a fine side of true sportsmen who absolutely nobody could have anything other than the highest regard for. My guess is that things would have been very different if we had beaten Australia because them losing is as important as England winning.
Stick to politics Stuart. You clearly know nothing about cricket and are making rather a fool of yourself with the transparent trolling.
Of course I know nothing about cricket. I have not voiced an opinion one way or the other, and do not intend to do so (life’s too short). However, I’m assuming that the sport correspondent of the Daily Telegraph might know a thing or two about cricket. Feel free to believe what you want to believe, but there is now a serious doubt clouding the win, just as most of the world remains unconvinced that the Russian linesman made a correct decision in 1966.
However, most would agree that you did deserve to be rugby world champions, so well done you.
" I’m assuming that the sport correspondent of the Daily Telegraph might know a thing or two about cricket"
As Derek Pringle points out in 1992 he had two stonewall LBWs turned down in the final and would have had Pakistan circa 30/4 in the final but that didn't diminish Pakistan's victory.
All cricket fans realise that the umpire's decision is final.
Is it that incendiary? Surely a Queen's Speech is long overdue?
Since the start of the twentieth century there have been annual State Opening's of Parliament every single year with only 2011 and 2018 being cancelled altogether [three times in the early 20th century it was brought forward]. We haven't yet had a 2019 one with the last one in 2017 so this is highly irregular and when it does finally occur it will be long, long overdue.
A new Parliamentary session is required - using the timing to avoid Parliamentary oversight is however a different matter...
Using the timing to avoid parliament imposing a different Brexit policy on the government is another matter again. And using it to avoid a VoNC raises it to yet another, higher, level.
I've no doubt that if the government tried to impose No Deal by parliamentary sleight of hand, a No Confidence motion would be brought. That vote would surely have to be taken.
I do think that the prorogation debate is something of a false one. Apart from a VoNC, what exactly can parliament do to stop a No Deal Brexit, when it's already legislated for and when the Commons doesn't have control of the House's business?
No need to worry. No deal is a million to one chance, we know that because Boris said so.
Stick to politics Stuart. You clearly know nothing about cricket and are making rather a fool of yourself with the transparent trolling.
Of course I know nothing about cricket. I have not voiced an opinion one way or the other, and do not intend to do so (life’s too short). However, I’m assuming that the sport correspondent of the Daily Telegraph might know a thing or two about cricket. Feel free to believe what you want to believe, but there is now a serious doubt clouding the win, just as most of the world remain unconvinced that the Russian linesman made a correct decision in 1966.
However, most would agree that you did deserve to be rugby world champions, so well done you.
I'm not sure that the rag that dedicates itself entirely to enhancing the wealth and career of Boris Johnson should know about much.
Is it that incendiary? Surely a Queen's Speech is long overdue?
Since the start of the twentieth century there have been annual State Opening's of Parliament every single year with only 2011 and 2018 being cancelled altogether [three times in the early 20th century it was brought forward]. We haven't yet had a 2019 one with the last one in 2017 so this is highly irregular and when it does finally occur it will be long, long overdue.
A new Parliamentary session is required - using the timing to avoid Parliamentary oversight is however a different matter...
Using the timing to avoid parliament imposing a different Brexit policy on the government is another matter again. And using it to avoid a VoNC raises it to yet another, higher, level.
I've no doubt that if the government tried to impose No Deal by parliamentary sleight of hand, a No Confidence motion would be brought. That vote would surely have to be taken.
I do think that the prorogation debate is something of a false one. Apart from a VoNC, what exactly can parliament do to stop a No Deal Brexit, when it's already legislated for and when the Commons doesn't have control of the House's business?
If a proroguation is scheduled in advance to occur and then a Queen's Speech is scheduled in advance then I don't see it as dodging a VoNC. The MPs can table the VoNC before the scheduled proroguation.
If, before parliament rises for the summer, or first day back of the pre-conference sitting, a prorogation date is formally pencilled into the calendar, then I think you may have a point.
The optics of a late October rise would still be bad though, even if planned in advance, the discussion thus far guarantees that. And if we are mid crisis, could parliament be recalled during a prorogation??
Can anyone (not HYUFD or Phillip Thompson please) explain to me the interrelation of the current position whereby we are set to leave the EU on October 31st and the legal requirement for Parliament to pass the Withdrawal Agreement?
And on a related point, can the EU extend the deadline without a formal request from the British PM?
Please just factual answers. Not what you 'hope' the position is.
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
I assume this applies to an extension of an extension.
Stick to politics Stuart. You clearly know nothing about cricket and are making rather a fool of yourself with the transparent trolling.
Of course I know nothing about cricket. I have not voiced an opinion one way or the other, and do not intend to do so (life’s too short). However, I’m assuming that the sport correspondent of the Daily Telegraph might know a thing or two about cricket. Feel free to believe what you want to believe, but there is now a serious doubt clouding the win, just as most of the world remains unconvinced that the Russian linesman made a correct decision in 1966.
However, most would agree that you did deserve to be rugby world champions, so well done you.
" I’m assuming that the sport correspondent of the Daily Telegraph might know a thing or two about cricket"
I've spotted the fatal flaw....
Here's what the cricket correspondent of the Telegraph said, he's also a former editor of Wisden, so he knows his cricket.
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
Nah, we recognise those who can't allow the English the tiniest scintilla of sporting happiness when we see it.
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
Nah, we recognise those who can't allow the English the tiniest scintilla of sporting happiness when we see it.
Didums.
I'm not in the least upset - for an English sports fan it comes with the territory.
Stick to politics Stuart. You clearly know nothing about cricket and are making rather a fool of yourself with the transparent trolling.
However, most would agree that you did deserve to be rugby world champions, so well done you.
Let me put it another way. You're being more than ungracious. It's ill-informed and curmudgeonly, to be polite.
Cricket is generally played in a super spirit far, far, removed from the silly nationalist bitter and twisted spite you are displaying. I sat amongst the most vociferous of Pakistan fans at Trent Bridge and it was fabulous fun. I went to six of the matches featuring a variety of wonderful supporters. No serious cricket fan denies the England win. They were probably the best team in the competition and dug deep for the victory. The final was played in a wonderful spirit which was a credit to both sides. The glow we all felt (all outside the Indian betting syndicates and Aussies, obvs) was fabulous and is undiminished.
But, yet, cricket is always full of 'what if's' from the seemingly dubious Nicholls LBW Not Out at the start through to the final ball low leg stump full toss of the main match, after the overthrows, which Ben Stokes would have sent into the St John's Wood Road had he not needed just a two. So nit pick away and dance up and down in your tartan all you will but you're not really doing yourself any favours here.
I was going to ask you please to continue staying away from cricket but on second thoughts your character might improve from it. Come and join me for a day and I'll educate you on the wondrous game whilst you can tell me more about Scotland. That's not facetious.
For technicality shit smearers, why not try this one..
In their semi-final New Zealand had six players outside the circle for the ball before Dhoni was out. If the umpires had spotted it, India would have got an extra run then a free hit. And Dhoni wouldn't have been out.
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
Nah, we recognise those who can't allow the English the tiniest scintilla of sporting happiness when we see it.
Didums.
Give it a break Stuart. You're not covering yourself in glory here.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
Let's just celebrate the sporting achievements throughout this great land! I'll start: Scotland's magical, inspired and wondrous second half at Twickenham last year was probably the greatest sporting comeback in history and the gods frowned unjustly upon them when they were robbed of their spoils by a fluky late try.
Let's just celebrate the sporting achievements throughout this great land! I'll start: Scotland's magical, inspired and wondrous second half at Twickenham last year was probably the greatest sporting comeback in history and the gods frowned unjustly upon them when they were robbed of their spoils by a fluky late try.
Istanbul 2005 was the greatest sporting comeback in history.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
At some point, officialdom is going to have to get with the program. If the law allows you to be whatever you want to be, then terms such as father/mother don't work anymore.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
At some point, officialdom is going to have to get with the program. If the law allows you to be whatever you want to be, then terms such as father/mother don't work anymore.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
At some point, officialdom is going to have to get with the program. If the law allows you to be whatever you want to be, then terms such as father/mother don't work anymore.
its a ludicrous request
Yes and no. Only humans with the right plumbing can give birth, but you have the right to decide what you want to be called, championed by the government. For the government to then say that you can't then be the father is just as ludicrous.
Can anyone (not HYUFD or Phillip Thompson please) explain to me the interrelation of the current position whereby we are set to leave the EU on October 31st and the legal requirement for Parliament to pass the Withdrawal Agreement?
And on a related point, can the EU extend the deadline without a formal request from the British PM?
Please just factual answers. Not what you 'hope' the position is.
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
I assume this applies to an extension of an extension.
Second question: Yes. EU can initiate extension without UK request but UK must agree.
Not clear what the first question is asking, but there is no interrelation. Without other action the treaties cease to apply on Oct 31. Parliament is under no legal requirement to agree the WA. If it does not agree a WA then the only choices are No Deal or Revoke (unless there is an extension). IMHO the PM can Revoke without other parliamentary authority but that has not been legally tested. If it does agree a WA it is not unlikely that further time will be needed, by agreed extension, to sort the details (ignore what candidates say at the moment about this, and indeed everything else).
By not agreeing a WA parliament permits and allows No Deal. It could possibly mandate the PM to Revoke, but may not get the chance to. If parliament wants both no WA and not a No Deal simultaneously then it is likely to be asking for the logically impossible.
Let's just celebrate the sporting achievements throughout this great land! I'll start: Scotland's magical, inspired and wondrous second half at Twickenham last year was probably the greatest sporting comeback in history and the gods frowned unjustly upon them when they were robbed of their spoils by a fluky late try.
Istanbul 2005 was the greatest sporting comeback in history.
You may be right. It has certainly stuck in my mind as a total classic. Never seen a pub go so mental.
By the way, mention of Derek Pringle ... now that was a strange old business.
I've met Derek a few times, top bloke, his recent book is great.
Still amuses me he got injured and missed a test writing a letter.
Hospitality, NZ test, Trent Bridge, 198x. Moxon and a few of the others came across as typical sportsmen, Pringle spent much of the lunch break, glasses on, absorbed in a small television screen that was showing chess.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
At some point, officialdom is going to have to get with the program. If the law allows you to be whatever you want to be, then terms such as father/mother don't work anymore.
its a ludicrous request
Yes and no. Only humans with the right plumbing can give birth, but you have the right to decide what you want to be called, championed by the government. For the government to then say that you can't then be the father is just as ludicrous.
But he isn't the father, "he" was impregnated by a man.. the very idea is nonsense.
According to Bernard in Yes Prime Minister, Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as they have big tits, so I guess their support for Boris Moobs Johnson is inevitable.
Let's just celebrate the sporting achievements throughout this great land! I'll start: Scotland's magical, inspired and wondrous second half at Twickenham last year was probably the greatest sporting comeback in history and the gods frowned unjustly upon them when they were robbed of their spoils by a fluky late try.
Istanbul 2005 was the greatest sporting comeback in history.
Only because it was the final.
The Semi Final this year was just as great a comeback.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
At some point, officialdom is going to have to get with the program. If the law allows you to be whatever you want to be, then terms such as father/mother don't work anymore.
its a ludicrous request
Yes and no. Only humans with the right plumbing can give birth, but you have the right to decide what you want to be called, championed by the government. For the government to then say that you can't then be the father is just as ludicrous.
But he isn't the father, "he" was impregnated by a man.. the very idea is nonsense.
I'm more sanguine about it. It doesn't really matter to me what people call themselves. The government have championed it, enshrined it in law, they will change their mind soon enough.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
At some point, officialdom is going to have to get with the program. If the law allows you to be whatever you want to be, then terms such as father/mother don't work anymore.
its a ludicrous request
Yes and no. Only humans with the right plumbing can give birth, but you have the right to decide what you want to be called, championed by the government. For the government to then say that you can't then be the father is just as ludicrous.
But he isn't the father, "he" was impregnated by a man.. the very idea is nonsense.
More ridiculous than calling an adoptive father a father?
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
I think that decision is very poor. Whatever one thinks of the current transgender issues or of a particular individual transitioning but still functioning as their original gender, surely they should have the right to privacy. What is the public interest (in the proper sense of the term rather than rubber necking voyeurism) in naming this individual? The law should be there to protect the individual not to facilitate tabloid sensationalism.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
I think that decision is very poor. Whatever one thinks of the current transgender issues or of a particular individual transitioning but still functioning as their original gender, surely they should have the right to privacy. What is the public interest (in the proper sense of the term rather than rubber necking voyeurism) in naming this individual? The law should be there to protect the individual not to facilitate tabloid sensationalism.
I think they should have a right to privacy, but not a right to fiddle with the birth certificate. So the birth certificate should be published as standard when they get published but we should be none-the-wiser whose birth certificate we are talking about.
If Thompson [no relation] and Venables can have privacy, this child should too.
I wouldn't expect New Zealanders to support England but they don't whinge when we beat them, unlike Scottish Nats who whinge on their behalf against England
Can anyone (not HYUFD or Phillip Thompson please) explain to me the interrelation of the current position whereby we are set to leave the EU on October 31st and the legal requirement for Parliament to pass the Withdrawal Agreement?
And on a related point, can the EU extend the deadline without a formal request from the British PM?
Please just factual answers. Not what you 'hope' the position is.
There is no legal requirement for Parliament to pass the Withdrawal Agreement. If they fail to do so but also fail to vote to instruct the Government to revoke then, unless there is another extension, the UK leaves without a Deal on 31st October. This has always been the case but has not materialised because of the extensions agreed between the EU and UK.
The interesting questions are whether Parliament can force Boris to accept an extension and whether they can force him to revoke without removing him from office. This is untested territory I believe and I have no idea what the legal position really is. I am not sure that anyone knows for sure until it is put to the test.
That article shows a complete ignorance of how cricket is played. A different decision wouldn't have "handed the game to New Zealand by one run". Because it would have been made three balls before the end of the game.
If it had been made like that, we can know for near-certain that the final scorecard wouldn't have been the same but with one run off the England total. Stokes played as he did in the knowledge that the score was what it was - he wouldn't have just punted on the last ball (if he'd been on strike at all).
Rashid would have been on strike, yes, but he's a competent batsman with ten first-class centuries to his name. I'd expect him to get a single, if not a boundary (yes, chance of a dot ball or even a wicket).
Say he gets a single, then Stokes would have swung for the fence on the final ball. Maybe he'd have missed, but given how he did against the same bowler in the Super Over a few minutes later, he could well have got a boundary or at least two runs.
But an article saying that New Zealand "would have won by one run" is mince. That's simply one permutation of an alternate timeline. Which diverged from ours at the antepenultimate ball. Maybe it would have been more exciting, maybe not.
Richard, thank you. That's really helpful. My growing sense is that if the remainers in Parliament really want to stop Brexit, or let's say stop No Deal Brexit, on Oct 31st then they have to vote down the Gov't in a VONC. I think anything else will be pussyfooting around and they will be outsmarted by the Boris / Williamson machine.
The other question though: can the EU extend the deadline without the Prime Minister requesting them so to do? I know it might sound a bizarre question but there are some scenarios where I could envisage that arising.
Richard, thank you. That's really helpful. My growing sense is that if the remainers in Parliament really want to stop Brexit, or let's say stop No Deal Brexit, on Oct 31st then they have to vote down the Gov't in a VONC. I think anything else will be pussyfooting around and they will be outsmarted by the Boris / Williamson machine.
The other question though: can the EU extend the deadline without the Prime Minister requesting them so to do? I know it might sound a bizarre question but there are some scenarios where I could envisage that arising.
The EU Constitution Article 50 says an extension can only occur by unanimous agreement of all EU nations and the departing nation. So it can not apply without the UK's consent.
If you mean can Parliament agree an extension in place of the Prime Minister over the Prime Minister's objection then I think we honestly don't know. That would probably be a matter for the courts to determine but I don't think there would be time to hear the case at the courts.
p.s. what Stuart has posted about New Zealanders is yet more absolute rubbish. There is none of the animosity that often arises amongst their antipodean neighbours. (It was, of course, his own projection.)
I think Stuart needs a time machine to undo the last two hours.
Richard, thank you. That's really helpful. My growing sense is that if the remainers in Parliament really want to stop Brexit, or let's say stop No Deal Brexit, on Oct 31st then they have to vote down the Gov't in a VONC. I think anything else will be pussyfooting around and they will be outsmarted by the Boris / Williamson machine.
The other question though: can the EU extend the deadline without the Prime Minister requesting them so to do? I know it might sound a bizarre question but there are some scenarios where I could envisage that arising.
I don't believe so. I believe an extension is only with the agreement of both sides. But again so much of this seems to be political will vs legal fact that I am not certain of that.
I would say that if they are intent on stopping Brexit then Parliament cannot afford to wait until late October to VoNC the Government. There are time factors involved in all these steps and Boris (if it is he) remains PM until there is a replacement decided. That means if they wait until a week before they may not have a PM in place in time who is able to revoke before the deadline.
Richard, thank you. That's really helpful. My growing sense is that if the remainers in Parliament really want to stop Brexit, or let's say stop No Deal Brexit, on Oct 31st then they have to vote down the Gov't in a VONC. I think anything else will be pussyfooting around and they will be outsmarted by the Boris / Williamson machine.
The other question though: can the EU extend the deadline without the Prime Minister requesting them so to do? I know it might sound a bizarre question but there are some scenarios where I could envisage that arising.
The EU Constitution Article 50 says an extension can only occur by unanimous agreement of all EU nations and the departing nation. So it can not apply without the UK's consent.
If you mean can Parliament agree an extension in place of the Prime Minister over the Prime Minister's objection then I think we honestly don't know. That would probably be a matter for the courts to determine but I don't think there would be time to hear the case at the courts.
I'm very wary of engaging with you Phillip. However, when the previous extension occurred Theresa May was not present in the room so by what mechanism must the UK also agree to it? Didn't the other countries come to their decision and then 'tell' TM what they had decided?
Tbh, and no offence, I really would rather you don't respond as I don't trust your answers to be objective and, therefore, accurate.
To anyone else: what happened at the above occasion, and what is supposed to happen? If the other EU members agreed to extend could they do so even though the PM hadn't signed off on it?
Good idea. Otherwise how will you decide who to vote for?
I voted a week ago, more there to support my man Boris (though I have applied to ask a question unlikely I will be called I suspect)
Well I got to ask Boris a question at M6 J36 and to be honest I got a pretty good answer. It was a non press event in the morning before the Carlisle event. The question was not trivial and was about parliamentary candidate selection. As he wasn't expecting it, couldn't have been as I had only made it up while waiting for him to appear, he was actually saying what he thought. He sounded more natural - I guess he couldn't have been as honest in a press environment. He really isn't as stupid as many hope he is.
Let's just celebrate the sporting achievements throughout this great land! I'll start: Scotland's magical, inspired and wondrous second half at Twickenham last year was probably the greatest sporting comeback in history and the gods frowned unjustly upon them when they were robbed of their spoils by a fluky late try.
Istanbul 2005 was the greatest sporting comeback in history.
No self respecting scouser is a Tory or sun reader.
Richard, thank you. That's really helpful. My growing sense is that if the remainers in Parliament really want to stop Brexit, or let's say stop No Deal Brexit, on Oct 31st then they have to vote down the Gov't in a VONC. I think anything else will be pussyfooting around and they will be outsmarted by the Boris / Williamson machine.
The other question though: can the EU extend the deadline without the Prime Minister requesting them so to do? I know it might sound a bizarre question but there are some scenarios where I could envisage that arising.
The EU Constitution Article 50 says an extension can only occur by unanimous agreement of all EU nations and the departing nation. So it can not apply without the UK's consent.
If you mean can Parliament agree an extension in place of the Prime Minister over the Prime Minister's objection then I think we honestly don't know. That would probably be a matter for the courts to determine but I don't think there would be time to hear the case at the courts.
I'm very wary of engaging with you Phillip. However, when the previous extension occurred Theresa May was not present in the room so by what mechanism must the UK also agree to it? Didn't the other countries come to their decision and then 'tell' TM what they had decided?
Tbh, and no offence, I really would rather you don't respond as I don't trust your answers to be objective and, therefore, accurate.
To anyone else: what happened at the above occasion, and what is supposed to happen? If the other EU members agreed to extend could they do so even though the PM hadn't signed off on it?
I believe the PM had made a formal request to the EU for an extension. She could not be there when the decision was made as that is a matter for the 27 to either accept or refuse. But they would not have been able to even make that decision without the formal request from the UK Government.
Edit: The FT have the formal letter requesting the first extension.
Richard, thank you. That's really helpful. My growing sense is that if the remainers in Parliament really want to stop Brexit, or let's say stop No Deal Brexit, on Oct 31st then they have to vote down the Gov't in a VONC. I think anything else will be pussyfooting around and they will be outsmarted by the Boris / Williamson machine.
The other question though: can the EU extend the deadline without the Prime Minister requesting them so to do? I know it might sound a bizarre question but there are some scenarios where I could envisage that arising.
The EU Constitution Article 50 says an extension can only occur by unanimous agreement of all EU nations and the departing nation. So it can not apply without the UK's consent.
If you mean can Parliament agree an extension in place of the Prime Minister over the Prime Minister's objection then I think we honestly don't know. That would probably be a matter for the courts to determine but I don't think there would be time to hear the case at the courts.
I'm very wary of engaging with you Phillip. However, when the previous extension occurred Theresa May was not present in the room so by what mechanism must the UK also agree to it? Didn't the other countries come to their decision and then 'tell' TM what they had decided?
Tbh, and no offence, I really would rather you don't respond as I don't trust your answers to be objective and, therefore, accurate.
To anyone else: what happened at the above occasion, and what is supposed to happen? If the other EU members agreed to extend could they do so even though the PM hadn't signed off on it?
I believe the PM had made a formal request to the EU for an extension. She could not be there when the decision was made as that is a matter for the 27 to either accept or refuse. But they would not have been able to even make that decision without the formal request from the UK Government.
Edit: The FT have the formal letter requesting the first extension.
I thought you said cricket was the most boring sport in existence? So why are you posting on it if not simply to troll?
This is boring and fed by disgruntled Indian betting markets, who lost out.
Mike Smithson, you know, the guy whose blog you read, proposed a theory that “this unique feel good moment has the potential to change our politics.”
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
The polish isn't coming off the English victory at all. Some visceral opponents of England are smearing themselves in the shit of a fantasy technicality to try to rob them of the victory.
Let's just celebrate the sporting achievements throughout this great land! I'll start: Scotland's magical, inspired and wondrous second half at Twickenham last year was probably the greatest sporting comeback in history and the gods frowned unjustly upon them when they were robbed of their spoils by a fluky late try.
Istanbul 2005 was the greatest sporting comeback in history.
Comments
I suspect that Ystradgynlais in the South West (a former coal mining area) has a strong traditional Labour support which might be more resistent to the Lib Dems.
People keep going on about the 17.4 million but that is no way near a majority of the population, which is heading for 70 million. Fifty million UK citizens did not vote for Brexit!
I've no doubt that if the government tried to impose No Deal by parliamentary sleight of hand, a No Confidence motion would be brought. That vote would surely have to be taken.
I do think that the prorogation debate is something of a false one. Apart from a VoNC, what exactly can parliament do to stop a No Deal Brexit, when it's already legislated for and when the Commons doesn't have control of the House's business?
Buttigieg stands a good chance in Iowa, and an OK one in New Hampshire. (Especially as he would get a big boost from winning Iowa.) But he's a pretty terrible candidate for South Carolina, and only a so-so one for Nevada.
Harris is likely weak in Iowa, and only moderately OK in New Hampshire. Her best hope is if Biden flops in Iowa and NH, in which case she likely cleans up in South Carolina.
Warren's best hope is a strong second in Iowa followed by winning in NH. She'll struggle in SC, but then could easily win in Nevada.
Biden, Biden, Biden. If he comes in fourth or fifth in Iowa, can he recover? His best hope is to beat Harris there and in NH, giving him the shot at South Carolina. But the more voters see of Sleepy Joe, the less impressed they are.
Sanders. If he gets beat by Warren in Iowa and New Hampshire (and I think he will), then it's hard to see where he goes from there.
The other thing to remember is that there's usually a 5% floor for getting delegates. This means that there are more than a dozen candidates who will get exactly no delegates in Iowa or New Hampshire, and who will be dropping out before Super Tuesday.
Now, most posters on that thread dismissed his theory, but few countered the feel-goodness of the English victory. Now the polish is coming off the “win” it is looking like sport is imitating the chaos of English politics rather than being a positive force.
Cricket, and boastful English media, are extremely tedious. I am not remotely interested in the sporting event per se, but rather in Mike’s theory.
And on a related point, can the EU extend the deadline without a formal request from the British PM?
Please just factual answers. Not what you 'hope' the position is.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-team-considering-plan-to-suspend-parliament-in-run-up-to-brexit-11764347
Pretty much every cricket fan I know (of every full member nation) said it was the greatest game of ODI cricket ever.
Cricket, like rugby union, is one of the most civilised sports between fans, that's why we don't have segregated seating for international matches.
However, most would agree that you did deserve to be rugby world champions, so well done you.
I've spotted the fatal flaw....
All cricket fans realise that the umpire's decision is final.
The optics of a late October rise would still be bad though, even if planned in advance, the discussion thus far guarantees that. And if we are mid crisis, could parliament be recalled during a prorogation??
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
I assume this applies to an extension of an extension.
https://twitter.com/scyldberry/status/1150526799031484416
Cricket is generally played in a super spirit far, far, removed from the silly nationalist bitter and twisted spite you are displaying. I sat amongst the most vociferous of Pakistan fans at Trent Bridge and it was fabulous fun. I went to six of the matches featuring a variety of wonderful supporters. No serious cricket fan denies the England win. They were probably the best team in the competition and dug deep for the victory. The final was played in a wonderful spirit which was a credit to both sides. The glow we all felt (all outside the Indian betting syndicates and Aussies, obvs) was fabulous and is undiminished.
But, yet, cricket is always full of 'what if's' from the seemingly dubious Nicholls LBW Not Out at the start through to the final ball low leg stump full toss of the main match, after the overthrows, which Ben Stokes would have sent into the St John's Wood Road had he not needed just a two. So nit pick away and dance up and down in your tartan all you will but you're not really doing yourself any favours here.
I was going to ask you please to continue staying away from cricket but on second thoughts your character might improve from it. Come and join me for a day and I'll educate you on the wondrous game whilst you can tell me more about Scotland. That's not facetious.
https://twitter.com/BLACKCAPS/status/1150824306148020232
https://twitter.com/ICC/status/1150573372901855232
In their semi-final New Zealand had six players outside the circle for the ball before Dhoni was out. If the umpires had spotted it, India would have got an extra run then a free hit. And Dhoni wouldn't have been out.
Still amuses me he got injured and missed a test writing a letter.
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/16/transgender-man-who-gave-birth-loses-high-court-privacy-case-fred-mcconnell
Enough said.
Not clear what the first question is asking, but there is no interrelation. Without other action the treaties cease to apply on Oct 31. Parliament is under no legal requirement to agree the WA. If it does not agree a WA then the only choices are No Deal or Revoke (unless there is an extension). IMHO the PM can Revoke without other parliamentary authority but that has not been legally tested. If it does agree a WA it is not unlikely that further time will be needed, by agreed extension, to sort the details (ignore what candidates say at the moment about this, and indeed everything else).
By not agreeing a WA parliament permits and allows No Deal. It could possibly mandate the PM to Revoke, but may not get the chance to. If parliament wants both no WA and not a No Deal simultaneously then it is likely to be asking for the logically impossible.
https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1150883150861688832?s=20
Living in New Zealand has made me realise why everyone hates England
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/72679120/
11 English Scots for Yes tell us why they back independence
https://www.thenational.scot/news/16317775.11-english-scots-for-yes-tell-us-why-they-back-independence/
The Semi Final this year was just as great a comeback.
Will Boris really cancel this now? Let's hope not. Maybe he couldn't get the votes anyway.
Nays: 17
Majority 246
Therefore Ayes = Nays + Majority = 263
So there is a potential Nay majority there but still seems rather unlikely.
Abstained = 354 by my count. Have I missed anyone?
https://twitter.com/BeschlossDC/status/1151117244337987586
Should have the results soon . The fact she’s already annoyed the Farage hate mob is a great start .
If this gets passed I confidently expect that the first expulsions will be on the right of the Labour party.
If Thompson [no relation] and Venables can have privacy, this child should too.
The interesting questions are whether Parliament can force Boris to accept an extension and whether they can force him to revoke without removing him from office. This is untested territory I believe and I have no idea what the legal position really is. I am not sure that anyone knows for sure until it is put to the test.
A different decision wouldn't have "handed the game to New Zealand by one run". Because it would have been made three balls before the end of the game.
If it had been made like that, we can know for near-certain that the final scorecard wouldn't have been the same but with one run off the England total. Stokes played as he did in the knowledge that the score was what it was - he wouldn't have just punted on the last ball (if he'd been on strike at all).
Rashid would have been on strike, yes, but he's a competent batsman with ten first-class centuries to his name. I'd expect him to get a single, if not a boundary (yes, chance of a dot ball or even a wicket).
Say he gets a single, then Stokes would have swung for the fence on the final ball. Maybe he'd have missed, but given how he did against the same bowler in the Super Over a few minutes later, he could well have got a boundary or at least two runs.
But an article saying that New Zealand "would have won by one run" is mince. That's simply one permutation of an alternate timeline. Which diverged from ours at the antepenultimate ball. Maybe it would have been more exciting, maybe not.
The other question though: can the EU extend the deadline without the Prime Minister requesting them so to do? I know it might sound a bizarre question but there are some scenarios where I could envisage that arising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYnF31el-ik&feature=youtu.be
3 hours and a few minutes to launch.
If you mean can Parliament agree an extension in place of the Prime Minister over the Prime Minister's objection then I think we honestly don't know. That would probably be a matter for the courts to determine but I don't think there would be time to hear the case at the courts.
I think Stuart needs a time machine to undo the last two hours.
I would say that if they are intent on stopping Brexit then Parliament cannot afford to wait until late October to VoNC the Government. There are time factors involved in all these steps and Boris (if it is he) remains PM until there is a replacement decided. That means if they wait until a week before they may not have a PM in place in time who is able to revoke before the deadline.
Tbh, and no offence, I really would rather you don't respond as I don't trust your answers to be objective and, therefore, accurate.
To anyone else: what happened at the above occasion, and what is supposed to happen? If the other EU members agreed to extend could they do so even though the PM hadn't signed off on it?
NEW THREAD
Edit: The FT have the formal letter requesting the first extension.
https://ig.ft.com/article-50-extension-annotated/
I assume there is a copy of the second around somewhere on the internet as well.
The new EU Commission President .
Headingley '81 surely?