There is an alternative to Corbyn. Leaving the party. But I don't think they'll do that.
There is another alternative which is if Corbyn is Foot then wait until he loses the next election and then replace him with a Kinnock-like figure who will attempt to get Militant/Momentum out again. Probably easier than getting SDP II to work. There is a lack of patience it seems to simply let Corbyn be seen to fail.
Except Kinnock lost TWO elections on the trot, in addition to Foot's debacle.
Yet Labour still returned to power in a majority 13 years before the legacy of the SDP did as a doomed minority.
Counter-factual - what would have happened if Labour hadn't gradually tacked back to the right after 1983? Kinnock may not have won any elections, but deserves a lot of credit as a politician for purging the party of its most electorally-repulsive elements - Derek Hatton, Dave Nellist and so forth. The partiy's slow creep back towards the centre was by no means inevitable. I suggest that if the party had remained marooned on the far left of the political spectrum - as it might well have done - the SDP (probably still allied with the Liberals) would have replaced it as the country's main opposition and would have, in some form, been the next non-Conservative government.
The question is therefore whether, following a heavy defeat in 2020, the Labour Party could find another Kinnock, who could drag the party back towards the centre - although still losing the next two elections - who might pave the way for another future Labour government. If the answer to this question is 'on balance, probably not' then the split offers the more attractive option.
Bear in mind too that the electoral geography of the country has changed. Labour can no longer rely on Scotland (either for MPs or as a bulwark against the far left). And if Scotland goes, a Labour government looks more remote still. If 2020 is 1983, Labour will be very lucky if 2020-2034 are as good for them as 1983-1997 were. That's the extent of the hole that potential splitters are in if they stay with a Corbyn-led party.
@Black_Rook What utter nonsense. The Article 50 case explores an important area of constitutional law - the extent of the royal prerogative.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
Not everything is just about Brexit.
We had the checks and balances. Parliament voted for the referendum, a policy which was very prominent in the manifesto, and the public made the decision. The government now has the extremely difficult task of implementing it, a task in which the exact timing is an important factor and which can only be made more dangerous by trying retrospectively to undo the decision or delay the implementation.
As David Herdson has rightly pointed out, what would a vote on Article 50 in parliament be for? If there is any chance of it not approving the triggering of Article 50, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it is just a cosmetic rubber-stamp job, then that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Parliament will need to ratify whatever agreement we end up reaching at the end of the process, yes.
Article 50 is the firing gun at the start of the process to begin negotiations, it is a start and not a destination.
Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
Three words: House. Of. Lords.
Two Words...Parliament Act
The Parliament Act is irrelevant as to the vote. There is no need for legislation at this stage so no need for the Commons to override the Lords. In effect, there is no need for the Lords to vote at all but if it does, there is no need for the government to pay it any attention. The expression of their opinion, in the words of the more rabid Remainers, would be purely 'advisory'. Without any legitimacy, the vote would carry little weight and in terms of future legislation, the Parliament Act could be invoked (as you rightly say) so again, an indicative vote against A50 would merely be flagging up future battles that wouldn't and couldn't impact directly on Brexit, which is a process that occurs independent of the member state's internal politics.
A reminder that under EHV (Enormo-Haddock Voting) the Upper Chamber would be occupied by the octo-lemur. I'm sure we can all agree this would be a better state of affairs.
Mr. Thompson, a problem with letting Corbyn fail is that it then decreases the number of MPs either he or a comparable politician needs to get onto the short list next time. If he even resigns.
Mr. Rook, indeed. There's a movement by some to try and frustrate, prolong and, if possible, deny the referendum result. It's rancid.
Does the octo-lemur have 8 fuzzy, ringed tails? And enormous eyes? Could be cute, and intelligent.
I had fried octopus tentacles while in the Canaries recently. Is that similar?
I hope not! I gag at the thought of eating something furry.
How was the octopus? Used to love it as a kid in Cyprus, although I rarely got to indulge.
There is an alternative to Corbyn. Leaving the party. But I don't think they'll do that.
There is another alternative which is if Corbyn is Foot then wait until he loses the next election and then replace him with a Kinnock-like figure who will attempt to get Militant/Momentum out again. Probably easier than getting SDP II to work. There is a lack of patience it seems to simply let Corbyn be seen to fail.
Except Kinnock lost TWO elections on the trot, in addition to Foot's debacle.
Yet Labour still returned to power in a majority 13 years before the legacy of the SDP did as a doomed minority.
Counter-factual - what would have happened if Labour hadn't gradually tacked back to the right after 1983? Kinnock may not have won any elections, but deserves a lot of credit as a politician for purging the party of its most electorally-repulsive elements - Derek Hatton, Dave Nellist and so forth. The partiy's slow creep back towards the centre was by no means inevitable. I suggest that if the party had remained marooned on the far left of the political spectrum - as it might well have done - the SDP (probably still allied with the Liberals) would have replaced it as the country's main opposition and would have, in some form, been the next non-Conservative government.
The question is therefore whether, following a heavy defeat in 2020, the Labour Party could find another Kinnock, who could drag the party back towards the centre - although still losing the next two elections - who might pave the way for another future Labour government. If the answer to this question is 'on balance, probably not' then the split offers the more attractive option.
Bear in mind too that the electoral geography of the country has changed. Labour can no longer rely on Scotland (either for MPs or as a bulwark against the far left). And if Scotland goes, a Labour government looks more remote still. If 2020 is 1983, Labour will be very lucky if 2020-2034 are as good for them as 1983-1997 were. That's the extent of the hole that potential splitters are in if they stay with a Corbyn-led party.
Yeah, they didn't just magic their way back, they essentially destroyed one minor party and expunged a third from their own ranks.
Mr. Meeks, you recall Parliament voted for the referendum, promised to abide by the result and the party proposing the referendum won an outright majority at the last election?
It's not like the referendum was a surprise put forward by a minority party against the will of Parliament and without consulting the people.
Come, come, Mr Dancer! The party proposing the referendum could not get even 25% of the vote of the electorate. So, effectively, it is a minority party. Was and continues to be. Sustained in office by the votes of thirty odd Tory MPs whose legality is still being investigated by the police.
And indeed it failed to consult the people, because the Tory leaders of the campaign on both sides forgot to tell the electorate what precisely they were voting on. "Brexit means Brexit" indeed? Stupid wonan!
Cameron should have done a proper job of renegotiation, and then put the three alternative scenarios (status quo, as negotiated, and immediate abandonment of the EU whatever the consequences) to the electorate.
The question is much too important to be left in the hands of Mrs May and the Three Brexiteers.
Mr. Meeks, so the official taxpayer-funded guidance stating that the result would be respected was a lie? And the democratic result should be ignored because the electorate voted wrong?
The exact quote from the government pamphlet is:
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."
Do they have the people, the clarity of thought as to what's needed and what they would look like when its finished?
@Tyson also said something interesting on this theme a few threads back:
I posted here during the Brown years that managerialism is fine for Govt, but once out of Govt Labour were going to hit a problem which is now all too evident. I really do not know what Labour moderates are about, and I'm one myself.
Mr. Meeks, you recall Parliament voted for the referendum, promised to abide by the result and the party proposing the referendum won an outright majority at the last election?
It's not like the referendum was a surprise put forward by a minority party against the will of Parliament and without consulting the people.
Come, come, Mr Dancer! The party proposing the referendum could not get even 25% of the vote of the electorate. So, effectively, it is a minority party. Was and continues to be. Sustained in office by the votes of thirty odd Tory MPs whose legality is still being investigated by the police.
And indeed it failed to consult the people, because the Tory leaders of the campaign on both sides forgot to tell the electorate what precisely they were voting on. "Brexit means Brexit" indeed? Stupid wonan!
Cameron should have done a proper job of renegotiation, and then put the three alternative scenarios (status quo, as negotiated, and immediate abandonment of the EU whatever the consequences) to the electorate.
The question is much too important to be left in the hands of Mrs May and the Three Brexiteers.
I do wonder what your concept of democracy is. Did you voice similar objections about Labour's minority governments? How did you vote in the AV referendum?
What a mess she's made of all this, which is a real shame as she's the sort of person who will undoubtedly make a good member of the Lords, with a legal background and a strong belief in the rights of the individual. But the way it's been done is a complete shambles!
She's a hand wringing do-gooder. Get her out of the Lords. A mass expulsion is what's needed.
I saw this interview live. Chakrabarti squirmed like a landed fish; well and truly caught. Was she bought? Well look at her eyes and decide.
Mr. Clipp, by that definition every post-war government hasn't had a mandate.
And that rather neglects that a majority of those who voted opted to Leave. You argue about democratic legitimacy in one paragraph then argue the result of a referendum should be ignored in the next.
Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry has been charged with alleged fraud offences.
STV News understands the alleged offences relate to her involvement with the pro-independence group Women for Independence and the SNP's Glasgow Regional Association (SNP GRA).
A complaint was made to Police Scotland by members of WFI's national executive committee in November 2015 after an internal audit of the group's finances left money unaccounted for.
Mr. Clipp, by that definition every post-war government hasn't had a mandate.
And that rather neglects that a majority of those who voted opted to Leave. You argue about democratic legitimacy in one paragraph then argue the result of a referendum should be ignored in the next.
Mr. T, indeed.
Is there a single government in the last few years that doesn't count as a minority party under that, frankly ludicrous, definition.
@Black_Rook What utter nonsense. The Article 50 case explores an important area of constitutional law - the extent of the royal prerogative.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
Not everything is just about Brexit.
We had the checks and balances. Parliament voted for the referendum, a policy which was very prominent in the manifesto, and the public made the decision. The government now has the extremely difficult task of implementing it, a task in which the exact timing is an important factor and which can only be made more dangerous by trying retrospectively to undo the decision or delay the implementation.
As David Herdson has rightly pointed out, what would a vote on Article 50 in parliament be for? If there is any chance of it not approving the triggering of Article 50, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it is just a cosmetic rubber-stamp job, then that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Parliament will need to ratify whatever agreement we end up reaching at the end of the process, yes.
Article 50 is the firing gun at the start of the process to begin negotiations, it is a start and not a destination.
But what would a parliamentary vote to reject the agreement reached by the UK government and the EU actually mean? The only logical conclusion I can come to on the matter is that if parliament vote down the agreement, they are in essence voting for full, hard Brexit. WTO rules and nothing more.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Yes, exactly, it was a vote to leave the EU. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
The question of what trade deal we end up with is a completely separate question. Parliament should obviously have an input to that, but in practice you can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry has been charged with alleged fraud offences.
STV News understands the alleged offences relate to her involvement with the pro-independence group Women for Independence and the SNP's Glasgow Regional Association (SNP GRA).
A complaint was made to Police Scotland by members of WFI's national executive committee in November 2015 after an internal audit of the group's finances left money unaccounted for.
Mr. Meeks, you recall Parliament voted for the referendum, promised to abide by the result and the party proposing the referendum won an outright majority at the last election?
It's not like the referendum was a surprise put forward by a minority party against the will of Parliament and without consulting the people.
Come, come, Mr Dancer! The party proposing the referendum could not get even 25% of the vote of the electorate. .
And how much of the electorate voted for the Glorious Labour Party?
What a mess she's made of all this, which is a real shame as she's the sort of person who will undoubtedly make a good member of the Lords, with a legal background and a strong belief in the rights of the individual. But the way it's been done is a complete shambles!
There are plenty of good lawyers with a strong belief in the rights of individuals, and with a real record of achievement, in the Lords. Lord Lester, for instance. Shami is not fit to lick their boots, frankly.
She showed appalling judgment in relation to the LSE and its acceptance of Ghadaffi family money. She failed to stand up for free speech in relation to the ban on Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, a ban subsequently overturned by the courts.
She has utterly failed to do the hard thinking needed to advance the cause of civil liberties when those same liberties are being used as a sword by those dedicated to their destruction, failed to understand the threat that such an ideology posed and failed to think intelligently about how to counter it, preferring to utter banalities which would have embarrassed an intelligent first year politics student.
We don't need any more people with poor judgment in the Lords.
IIRC 18% of the HoC are lawyers by training.
I don't see that as a good thing myself.
It depends on the lawyers, doesn't it? There are good ones and bad ones. Good lawyers don't necessarily make good Parliamentarians.
Chris Mullin was particularly vituperative about lawyers in his diaries when he, with Sir John Stokes, a Tory MP, were carrying on their lonely campaign for the Birmingham Six. According to Mullin, he asked Sir John whether he was bothered by the criticism he faced from fellow Tory MPs who were lawyers, to which Sir John's crisp reply was that they were all "utter shits".
Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry has been charged with alleged fraud offences.
STV News understands the alleged offences relate to her involvement with the pro-independence group Women for Independence and the SNP's Glasgow Regional Association (SNP GRA).
A complaint was made to Police Scotland by members of WFI's national executive committee in November 2015 after an internal audit of the group's finances left money unaccounted for.
@Black_Rook What utter nonsense. The Article 50 case explores an important area of constitutional law - the extent of the royal prerogative.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
Not everything is just about Brexit.
We had the checks and balances. Parliament voted for the referendum, a policy which was very prominent in the manifesto, and the public made the decision. The government now has the extremely difficult task of implementing it, a task in which the exact timing is an important factor and which can only be made more dangerous by trying retrospectively to undo the decision or delay the implementation.
As David Herdson has rightly pointed out, what would a vote on Article 50 in parliament be for? If there is any chance of it not approving the triggering of Article 50, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it is just a cosmetic rubber-stamp job, then that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Parliament will need to ratify whatever agreement we end up reaching at the end of the process, yes.
Article 50 is the firing gun at the start of the process to begin negotiations, it is a start and not a destination.
But what would a parliamentary vote to reject the agreement reached by the UK government and the EU actually mean? The only logical conclusion I can come to on the matter is that if parliament vote down the agreement, they are in essence voting for full, hard Brexit. WTO rules and nothing more.
Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry has been charged with alleged fraud offences.
STV News understands the alleged offences relate to her involvement with the pro-independence group Women for Independence and the SNP's Glasgow Regional Association (SNP GRA).
A complaint was made to Police Scotland by members of WFI's national executive committee in November 2015 after an internal audit of the group's finances left money unaccounted for.
Between the options of hard-Brexit, soft-Brexit, and an extended pause for thought while we allow the population time to reconsider, it's soft-Brexit that would really shaft democracy.
I noted that when my children got to age 14 and had to pick their GCSE’s they had a matrix of subjects. IIRC they had to select eight (plus English and Maths) out of eight “boxes”. It was organised so that they had to end up with a range of subjects, and the less academic could include PE and Woodwork etc. Much better than the “sheep or goats” approach of my 50’s Grammar School. Grandson 2 will be selecting later this year; ’twill be interesting to see how his school approaches the matter. Constructing timetables must be quite difficult.
Lifelong Learning is a fascinating subject in its own right. There’s considerable evidence that it helps to keep the brain active and postpone the ageing process, mentally anyway. I got involved with it on a professional basis in my last few working years and am still somewhat involved in organisation. What one has to be very careful of doing is confusing education with exams. The two are often inextricably linked in the mind.
Yes, creating those matrices must be incredibly difficult. That is the problem of relying on teachers teaching in physical classes at set times to a define set of students.
I have to say, my daughter's suggestion that she switch from that model to distance learning, (where everything was done on the computer in self study off a reading list and questions were one on one with the tutor at a time of mutual convenience and focussed only on problem issues specific to my daughter's learning), turned out not only to be a way more efficient, but also a way more effective way of learning. Interestingly, the tests in this model turned from the dreaded 'exam' into simply a way of proving that you had completed the assignment for that section, and nothing to be feared.
It has had a huge impact on her success in the university environment.
The distance learning model for children (see School of the Air in Australia for the earliest example for under 16s) is great but, as the Aussies will tell you, it relies for success on the involvement of concerned, responsible adults at the child's end. With that level of adult involvement and support it can be hugely successful but without it fails utterly. So not a really useful model for mass education.
Exams should of course never be feared and teachers who put pressure on youngsters to do so are really guilty of child abuse.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Mr. Glenn, would you be advocating a period of reconsidering if we'd voted the other way?
It would be unnecessary as that would have been automatic position. We would have been back to the ongoing dysfunctional debate over Europe that we've had since Maggie went mad.
One way or another I hope that having 'won', the eurosceptics will be reconciled to what happens. They need a fair crack at the whip so their illusions can be shattered.
The position of the ultra-Remainiacs is quite perplexing, and extremely revealing. They are content to see democracy shafted, to get their way.
They clearly won't get their way, and in future everyone will regard them with deep suspicion. What is the point??
Hence the fact that pink dishrag Farron, being possessed of all the political guile of a blancmange, is marching his troops over the top: he wants to stop Brexit or die trying.
My money's on the latter. The potential vote for Continuity Remain in the country is considerably smaller than that for Corbyn Labour (and most of those obliged to choose between their desire to campaign to stay in the EU and their desire to campaign for socialism will opt for the latter - hence the derisory turnout for those "March for Europe" thingies earlier in the month.)
Mr. Glenn, no, it wouldn't. We'd be facing an EU Army we'd been promised would not happen, not to mention the detrimental 'improvements' Cameron negotiated for us.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
@Black_Rook What utter nonsense. The Article 50 case explores an important area of constitutional law - the extent of the royal prerogative.
One day the government will want to do something that you strongly disapprove of. Who knows, that government might even be headed by a Prime Minister who was put in that position by a popular vote and following a programme that had been put before the people at a general election. You would still want to ensure that appropriate checks and balances were in place.
Not everything is just about Brexit.
We had the checks and balances. Parliament voted for the referendum, a policy which was very prominent in the manifesto, and the public made the decision. The government now has the extremely difficult task of implementing it, a task in which the exact timing is an important factor and which can only be made more dangerous by trying retrospectively to undo the decision or delay the implementation.
As David Herdson has rightly pointed out, what would a vote on Article 50 in parliament be for? If there is any chance of it not approving the triggering of Article 50, that would be a democratic outrage given the referendum result. Alternatively, if it is just a cosmetic rubber-stamp job, then that weakens, not strengthens, the role of parliament.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
You do realise that a vote on A50 is different from a vote on the final Brexit deal? The latter should be put to parliament, although if it chooses to reject it then it would be voting for an uncontrolled exit rather than either a controlled one (the deal) or remain (not on offer).
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
If Deutsche Bank is not stabilized and soon, it's not the Patent Court the Italian government will be worrying about.
I'm with you, Morris. I don't believe that Mrs May has the guts, the willpower, and the negotiating skills to take Britain out of the EU in a full Brexit. She has promised that negotiations will start in earnest in January 2017, why wait 'til then? The clue is that she has no idea what to do after article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is proclaimed.
''The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established. ''
Is there a similar fight over who is going to pay Britain's subs when we've gone?
Mr. Glenn, no, it wouldn't. We'd be facing an EU Army we'd been promised would not happen, not to mention the detrimental 'improvements' Cameron negotiated for us.
The status quo was never on offer.
That depends how you define the status quo.
Stasis is never on offer anywhere in world affairs. The status quo in our relationship with the EU was reluctant acquiescence on most things, with unbudgeable red lines on others. That would have continued.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Thanks, TSE. I did wonder after my post whether there was something in the text that linked the Convention itself back to the EU institutions. But the Convention itself is not an EU institution.
I suspect the European musings on this matter are entirely of the opportunistic nature. I presume that a solution to this 'problem' for the other non-EU parties is not deemed insurmountable.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
"The [Unified Patent Court] Agreement is open to accession by any Member State of the European Union. The Agreement is not open to states outside of the European Union. Up to date, all European Union Member States except Spain and Poland have signed the Agreement."
This presumably is one of the complexities of the Article 50 process, since we are a Contracting Member State and some arrangement will have to be made for us either to un-contract, or for a special exception be made for us to stay.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Yes, exactly, it was a vote to leave the EU. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Legally, what are the prospects for leaving without triggering Article 50? Could we instead negotiate a deal via a treaty? Handing control of the timetable to the EU is burning our best card.
Obviously the EU might not be terribly keen to go down this route, and it looks like a moot point anyway given the briefings emanating from No 10.
Mr. Glenn, would you be advocating a period of reconsidering if we'd voted the other way?
I think not, Mr. Dancer. An exam is a method of measuring the level of knowledge acquired, no more. For younger children especially, it is more a measure of how good the teachers are rather than the ability of the children. Therefore for teachers to create an atmosphere of exams are really important and scary is to transfer their anxiety about their own capabilities to the children. Creating needless stress in children is in my view an abuse.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
"The [Unified Patent Court] Agreement is open to accession by any Member State of the European Union. The Agreement is not open to states outside of the European Union. Up to date, all European Union Member States except Spain and Poland have signed the Agreement."
This presumably is one of the complexities of the Article 50 process, since we are a Contracting Member State and some arrangement will have to be made for us either to un-contract, or for a special exception be made for us to stay.
I would presume that there will be considerable pressure for a compromise on this. A European Patent would be considerably weakened if the UK is not permitted to be a party.
"Last month the IMF described it as the world's most dangerous bank as it is the weakest link in the chain of globally significant financial institutions."
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Yes, exactly, it was a vote to leave the EU. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Legally, what are the prospects for leaving without triggering Article 50? Could we instead negotiate a deal via a treaty? Handing control of the timetable to the EU is burning our best card.
Obviously the EU might not be terribly keen to go down this route, and it looks like a moot point anyway given the briefings emanating from No 10.
A non-starter I'd have thought. It would need the unanimous agreement of 28 countries, some of which would have to hold referendums, to negotiate a deal by treaty. Since the Article 50 mechanism exists, in practice we have to use it.
The alternative, which some of the nuttier Brexiteers have suggested, is to ignore our commitments under the Lisbon Treaty and unilaterally abrogate it and the other European treaties. But that would be an unthinkable act of international legal vandalism.
After 10 years outside the EU it is almost inconceivable we would then seek to go back in, especially as by that time the EU will either have Federalised, or fallen apart, and our special status would no longer be on offer (e.g. if we rejoined we'd also have to join the euro)
Once we leave, we leave.
Yes I think that's right. The only route back in I can see would be predicated on the dissolution of the UK, which would be a shame, and a fundamental reform of Westminster, which wouldn't.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Thanks, TSE. I did wonder after my post whether there was something in the text that linked the Convention itself back to the EU institutions. But the Convention itself is not an EU institution.
I suspect the European musings on this matter are entirely of the opportunistic nature. I presume that a solution to this 'problem' for the other non-EU parties is not deemed insurmountable.
The actualité of Leaving and taking control is going to be tres complicated
There's a pretty good chance the Euro, if not the EU itself, goes pop with it.
The only conceivable way Deutsche holds up is with trillions of 'printed' Euros from the ECB, with the attendant devaluation and inflation that will bring to the whole EZ.
here's a pretty good chance the Euro, if not the EU itself, goes pop with it.
Depends what is meant by 'goes pop'. Deutsche has the option of raising money by soaking its investors. Not nice for them, but as Matthew Lynn points out in the telly today, the politics of intervention are horrendous for Merkel.
@skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?
Howard Wilkinson?
Sgt Wilko managed England for two matches
Damn. Close though.
Wilkinson strictly managed England for one game, twice.
Peter Taylor (2000) and Stuart Pearce (2012) also managed for just the one game.
"Last month the IMF described it as the world's most dangerous bank as it is the weakest link in the chain of globally significant financial institutions."
A very big story if it does get into serious trouble (although FWIW it has almost made up today's losses.)
DB's share price is now driven by bets on whether Germany will stand behind it and, if so, how. It has nothing (or very little) to do with it's quality as an investment.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Thanks, TSE. I did wonder after my post whether there was something in the text that linked the Convention itself back to the EU institutions. But the Convention itself is not an EU institution.
I suspect the European musings on this matter are entirely of the opportunistic nature. I presume that a solution to this 'problem' for the other non-EU parties is not deemed insurmountable.
The actualité of Leaving and taking control is going to be tres complicated
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Thanks, TSE. I did wonder after my post whether there was something in the text that linked the Convention itself back to the EU institutions. But the Convention itself is not an EU institution.
I suspect the European musings on this matter are entirely of the opportunistic nature. I presume that a solution to this 'problem' for the other non-EU parties is not deemed insurmountable.
The actualité of Leaving and taking control is going to be tres complicated
it is becoming clear that there are years of popcorn moments to come on the subject of Brexit and the intellectual menopause of the establishment left. If the Donald wins in Nov the noise of it from across the pond is going to be deafening. A certain type of politics has simply failed and people chose something else. I happened to be listening to R4 in my car this morning when Yvette the shiny quacking robot came on to tell us all how utterly fantastic Hillary Clinton is. Her sort have clearly just run out of ideas or purpose.
To update the Euro football chant ... "Fuck off lawyers, we voted No."
The people have spoken, and having spoken move on. Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Big Sam's looking precarious. I bet there's a few words he'd like wiped out.
Is anyone really surprised that BS has been unable to control his instincts? The only surprise is that he seems to have done quite well for a month or two.
I had not realized how poor Forbes articles could be. The entire piece should have been reduced to half of the final paragraph, to whit:
"Deutsche ... is still too big to fail. Therefore it will not be allowed to fail. ... no one is going to allow it to be replaced by a smouldering crater and whatever needs to be done to prevent that will be"
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Mr. Glenn, would you be advocating a period of reconsidering if we'd voted the other way?
I think not, Mr. Dancer. An exam is a method of measuring the level of knowledge acquired, no more. For younger children especially, it is more a measure of how good the teachers are rather than the ability of the children. Therefore for teachers to create an atmosphere of exams are really important and scary is to transfer their anxiety about their own capabilities to the children. Creating needless stress in children is in my view an abuse.
That's OK - give them safe-spaces instead. Don't abuse your children by making their lives too easy.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Thanks, TSE. I did wonder after my post whether there was something in the text that linked the Convention itself back to the EU institutions. But the Convention itself is not an EU institution.
I suspect the European musings on this matter are entirely of the opportunistic nature. I presume that a solution to this 'problem' for the other non-EU parties is not deemed insurmountable.
The actualité of Leaving and taking control is going to be tres complicated
True. Like any breakup. But if the main force keeping you in a relationship is what a pain in the arse it's going to be to separate, the relationship has no happy future.
If it goes as far as being unable to recapitalise itself, the German Government would have to step in, as much as it would wish to avoid so doing. Would be rather like Brown's Govt having to end the run on Northern Rock, except that Deutsche is more the size of Barclays.
After that we're into the realms of speculation, but depending on how bad it gets and how far the contagion spreads, it could potentially bring down Merkel and cause the Eurozone to begin to unravel.
Then again, it could just turn out to be an acutely embarrassing episode which is swiftly contained. Those of us who convinced ourselves that Greece would quit the Euro to avoid a permaslump have been proven wrong: the amount of political willpower and capital invested in this project is absolutely huge.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Yes, exactly, it was a vote to leave the EU. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Legally, what are the prospects for leaving without triggering Article 50? Could we instead negotiate a deal via a treaty? Handing control of the timetable to the EU is burning our best card.
Obviously the EU might not be terribly keen to go down this route, and it looks like a moot point anyway given the briefings emanating from No 10.
A non-starter I'd have thought. It would need the unanimous agreement of 28 countries, some of which would have to hold referendums, to negotiate a deal by treaty. Since the Article 50 mechanism exists, in practice we have to use it.
The alternative, which some of the nuttier Brexiteers have suggested, is to ignore our commitments under the Lisbon Treaty and unilaterally abrogate it and the other European treaties. But that would be an unthinkable act of international legal vandalism.
I agree that the latter would be stupid. We have a legal route to quitting, through Article 50, and so we must take it.
it is becoming clear that there are years of popcorn moments to come on the subject of Brexit and the intellectual menopause of the establishment left. If the Donald wins in Nov the noise of it from across the pond is going to be deafening. A certain type of politics has simply failed and people chose something else. I happened to be listening to R4 in my car this morning when Yvette the shiny quacking robot came on to tell us all how utterly fantastic Hillary Clinton is. Her sort have clearly just run out of ideas or purpose.
I'm not sure about your assumption that YC or her sort were ever strong on ideas or purpose, sensible ones at least.
I had not realized how poor Forbes articles could be. The entire piece should have been reduced to half of the final paragraph, to whit:
"Deutsche ... is still too big to fail. Therefore it will not be allowed to fail. ... no one is going to allow it to be replaced by a smouldering crater and whatever needs to be done to prevent that will be"
A fair summation. The amount of damage this causes will depend firstly on how well or badly the German Government handles any potential bailout, and secondly on the political fallout - both in Germany and in the southern debtor states.
I had not realized how poor Forbes articles could be. The entire piece should have been reduced to half of the final paragraph, to whit:
"Deutsche ... is still too big to fail. Therefore it will not be allowed to fail. ... no one is going to allow it to be replaced by a smouldering crater and whatever needs to be done to prevent that will be"
I seem to recall similar sentiments being expressed about Lehman?
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Yes, exactly, it was a vote to leave the EU. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Legally, what are the prospects for leaving without triggering Article 50? Could we instead negotiate a deal via a treaty? Handing control of the timetable to the EU is burning our best card.
Obviously the EU might not be terribly keen to go down this route, and it looks like a moot point anyway given the briefings emanating from No 10.
Article 50 comes with an "Exit Agreement" which has to be agreed within two years unless there is a unanimous wish for extension. The Exit Agreement is agreed by Qualified Majority Voting in the European Council (ie heads of of government). The Agreement is then accepted or rejected in its entirety by the European Parliament. Then, with or without agreement we leave. What can be included in the Exit Agreement is vague.
Any other arrangements will have to be agreed by Treaty, which goes on a round robin of Commission (the bureaucrats led by Mr Juncker), Parliament then Commission. probably several passes. This can take years. Once it is agreed by those bodies, it then has to be written into national law in 30 or so parliaments (some countries have more than one parliament). Each of those parliaments have an effective veto and the whole ratification process takes a further couple of years.
The more we can get into the Exit Agreement, the better for us. There isn't a lot of time, so we are looking at either minimal change or minimal agreement, in my view.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Thanks, TSE. I did wonder after my post whether there was something in the text that linked the Convention itself back to the EU institutions. But the Convention itself is not an EU institution.
I suspect the European musings on this matter are entirely of the opportunistic nature. I presume that a solution to this 'problem' for the other non-EU parties is not deemed insurmountable.
The actualité of Leaving and taking control is going to be tres complicated
True. Like any breakup. But if the main force keeping you in a relationship is what a pain in the arse it's going to be to separate, the relationship has no happy future.
An MP has been charged in connection with alleged fraud offences. Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry had been under investigation by police after a pro-independence group reported a potential financial discrepancy in its accounts.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Yes, exactly, it was a vote to leave the EU. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Legally, what are the prospects for leaving without triggering Article 50? Could we instead negotiate a deal via a treaty? Handing control of the timetable to the EU is burning our best card.
Obviously the EU might not be terribly keen to go down this route, and it looks like a moot point anyway given the briefings emanating from No 10.
Article 50 comes with an "Exit Agreement" which has to be agreed within two years unless there is a unanimous wish for extension. The Exit Agreement is agreed by Qualified Majority Voting in the European Council (ie heads of of government). The Agreement is then accepted or rejected in its entirety by the European Parliament. Then, with or without agreement we leave. What can be included in the Exit Agreement is vague.
Any other arrangements will have to be agreed by Treaty, which goes on a round robin of Commission (the bureaucrats led by Mr Juncker), Parliament then Commission. probably several passes. This can take years. Once it is agreed by those bodies, it then has to be written into national law in 30 or so parliaments (some countries have more than one parliament). Each of those parliaments have an effective veto and the whole ratification process takes a further couple of years.
The more we can get into the Exit Agreement, the better for us. There isn't a lot of time, so we are looking at either minimal change or minimal agreement, in my view.
There is a belief that Art 50 can be modified by unanimous agreement at the outset to create more time to secure Customs regulations into UK law and maintain the other mutual recognition issues etc.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Yes, exactly, it was a vote to leave the EU. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Legally, what are the prospects for leaving without triggering Article 50? Could we instead negotiate a deal via a treaty? Handing control of the timetable to the EU is burning our best card.
Obviously the EU might not be terribly keen to go down this route, and it looks like a moot point anyway given the briefings emanating from No 10.
Article 50 comes with an "Exit Agreement" which has to be agreed within two years unless there is a unanimous wish for extension. The Exit Agreement is agreed by Qualified Majority Voting in the European Council (ie heads of of government). The Agreement is then accepted or rejected in its entirety by the European Parliament. Then, with or without agreement we leave. What can be included in the Exit Agreement is vague.
Any other arrangements will have to be agreed by Treaty, which goes on a round robin of Commission (the bureaucrats led by Mr Juncker), Parliament then Commission. probably several passes. This can take years. Once it is agreed by those bodies, it then has to be written into national law in 30 or so parliaments (some countries have more than one parliament). Each of those parliaments have an effective veto and the whole ratification process takes a further couple of years.
The more we can get into the Exit Agreement, the better for us. There isn't a lot of time, so we are looking at either minimal change or minimal agreement, in my view.
This is entirely correct, and it's worth understanding why. When the EU and (say) Canada enter into a Free Trade Agreement, the treaty will be between Canada, the EU, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. etc. etc.
Every country - and the EU itself - is party to the Treaty. For this reason, all trade agreements are subject to unanimity, and this is why the Netherlands was able to scupper a trade deal with the Ukraine.
However, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, the relationship between the EU and a departing state is decided by QMV. It would come into force as soon as the EU and the departing signed it, and not when all the individual countries (as they must inevitably do) ratify it.
There isn't a lot of time, so we are looking at either minimal change or minimal agreement, in my view.
Fair enough, but I think you are missing the most likely outcome, which is agreement on the Heads of Agreement, and then agreement on a mechanism to implement those over a timeframe that extends well beyond Article 50's two years, thus both respecting the Lisbon Treaty and providing a practical means of achieving a full and proper agreement.
A reminder that under EHV (Enormo-Haddock Voting) the Upper Chamber would be occupied by the octo-lemur. I'm sure we can all agree this would be a better state of affairs.
Mr. Thompson, a problem with letting Corbyn fail is that it then decreases the number of MPs either he or a comparable politician needs to get onto the short list next time. If he even resigns.
Mr. Rook, indeed. There's a movement by some to try and frustrate, prolong and, if possible, deny the referendum result. It's rancid.
Does the octo-lemur have 8 fuzzy, ringed tails? And enormous eyes? Could be cute, and intelligent.
I had fried octopus tentacles while in the Canaries recently. Is that similar?
I hope not! I gag at the thought of eating something furry.
How was the octopus? Used to love it as a kid in Cyprus, although I rarely got to indulge.
Very tasty at the tentacle end; a bit tough higher up. The suckers were crispy.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unified Patent Court in Paris will deal with legal disputes about new inventions while another in Munich will deal with engineering issues.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Only halfwits thought Brexit would be cost-free. London will lose other EU offices, as well.
Equally, only halfwits believe Brexit will be entirely negative.
We left because we didn't want to be subject to the oppressive yoke of the European Union and its sovereignty-busting institutions. Such as the ECJ. And yet, here are we worrying that the opportunity to be subject to the ECJ, might be taken away from us.
Oh, but we can choose to be subject to the ECJ if we want to be and it will be our sovereign will to do so. Which is entirely different of course from being a member of a voluntary organisation wherein we are, er, subject to the ECJ.
An MP has been charged in connection with alleged fraud offences. Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry had been under investigation by police after a pro-independence group reported a potential financial discrepancy in its accounts.
Do they have the people, the clarity of thought as to what's needed and what they would look like when its finished?
@Tyson also said something interesting on this theme a few threads back:
I posted here during the Brown years that managerialism is fine for Govt, but once out of Govt Labour were going to hit a problem which is now all too evident. I really do not know what Labour moderates are about, and I'm one myself.
I thought that was a very telling point.
Labour "we're good at running things" Public "no, you're not" Labour " .... vote for us, get a microwave?"
An MP has been charged in connection with alleged fraud offences. Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry had been under investigation by police after a pro-independence group reported a potential financial discrepancy in its accounts.
Her constituency includes Easterhouse, sometimes cited as the most downtrodden council estate in Scotland. IDS famously visited it a few years ago. Glasgow East used to be one of the safest Labour seats in the UK.
There is a belief that Art 50 can be modified by unanimous agreement at the outset to create more time to secure Customs regulations into UK law and maintain the other mutual recognition issues etc.
In incorrect belief in practise I would think. It only needs one citizen of the EU to challenge it in the ECJ and its toast because the ECJ will only rule on the text of the treaties (Article 50) and no the agreements of the member states, unanimous or otherwise.
The more we can get into the Exit Agreement, the better for us. There isn't a lot of time, so we are looking at either minimal change or minimal agreement, in my view.
Or more agreed prior to the triggering of Article 50, whatever people may say in public. Article 50 is clearly lopsided and in other contractual contexts could well be deemed unfair.
There is a belief that Art 50 can be modified by unanimous agreement at the outset to create more time to secure Customs regulations into UK law and maintain the other mutual recognition issues etc.
In incorrect belief in practise I would think. It only needs one citizen of the EU to challenge it in the ECJ and its toast because the ECJ will only rule on the text of the treaties (Article 50) and no the agreements of the member states, unanimous or otherwise.
I think that's absolutely right. (Although, if the timespan was sufficiently short - say 12 months - it might work to buy a brief period before the ECJ ruled.)
The government is not Parliament. I had not realised that so many Leavers were so ignorant of the difference.
Harriet Harman was rightly derided (by the right primarily) for saying that the court of public opinion trumped the rule of law. That's politics, not consistency, I suppose.
Comments
The question is therefore whether, following a heavy defeat in 2020, the Labour Party could find another Kinnock, who could drag the party back towards the centre - although still losing the next two elections - who might pave the way for another future Labour government. If the answer to this question is 'on balance, probably not' then the split offers the more attractive option.
Bear in mind too that the electoral geography of the country has changed. Labour can no longer rely on Scotland (either for MPs or as a bulwark against the far left). And if Scotland goes, a Labour government looks more remote still. If 2020 is 1983, Labour will be very lucky if 2020-2034 are as good for them as 1983-1997 were. That's the extent of the hole that potential splitters are in if they stay with a Corbyn-led party.
Article 50 is the firing gun at the start of the process to begin negotiations, it is a start and not a destination.
How was the octopus? Used to love it as a kid in Cyprus, although I rarely got to indulge.
No you aren't. You are perfectly at liberty to campaign for a different relationship with Europe in the future if you wish.
Do they have the guts to do that again?
And indeed it failed to consult the people, because the Tory leaders of the campaign on both sides forgot to tell the electorate what precisely they were voting on. "Brexit means Brexit" indeed? Stupid wonan!
Cameron should have done a proper job of renegotiation, and then put the three alternative scenarios (status quo, as negotiated, and immediate abandonment of the EU whatever the consequences) to the electorate.
The question is much too important to be left in the hands of Mrs May and the Three Brexiteers.
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."
I posted here during the Brown years that managerialism is fine for Govt, but once out of Govt Labour were going to hit a problem which is now all too evident. I really do not know what Labour moderates are about, and I'm one myself.
I thought that was a very telling point.
REMAIN 48%
And that rather neglects that a majority of those who voted opted to Leave. You argue about democratic legitimacy in one paragraph then argue the result of a referendum should be ignored in the next.
Mr. T, indeed.
STV News understands the alleged offences relate to her involvement with the pro-independence group Women for Independence and the SNP's Glasgow Regional Association (SNP GRA).
A complaint was made to Police Scotland by members of WFI's national executive committee in November 2015 after an internal audit of the group's finances left money unaccounted for.
http://stv.tv/news/politics/1368249-mp-natalie-mcgarry-charged-in-connection-with-fraud-offences/
The question of what trade deal we end up with is a completely separate question. Parliament should obviously have an input to that, but in practice you can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Chris Mullin was particularly vituperative about lawyers in his diaries when he, with Sir John Stokes, a Tory MP, were carrying on their lonely campaign for the Birmingham Six. According to Mullin, he asked Sir John whether he was bothered by the criticism he faced from fellow Tory MPs who were lawyers, to which Sir John's crisp reply was that they were all "utter shits".
I'll believe we're leaving when we've left.
Exams should of course never be feared and teachers who put pressure on youngsters to do so are really guilty of child abuse.
Mr. Glenn, would you be advocating a period of reconsidering if we'd voted the other way?
One way or another I hope that having 'won', the eurosceptics will be reconciled to what happens. They need a fair crack at the whip so their illusions can be shattered.
My money's on the latter. The potential vote for Continuity Remain in the country is considerably smaller than that for Corbyn Labour (and most of those obliged to choose between their desire to campaign to stay in the EU and their desire to campaign for socialism will opt for the latter - hence the derisory turnout for those "March for Europe" thingies earlier in the month.)
The status quo was never on offer.
A third court division is due to open in Aldgate Tower, London, next year dedicated to disputes in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a sector in which the UK is seen as a world leader.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
https://www.ft.com/content/9199ea86-80c8-11e6-8e50-8ec15fb462f4
Is there a similar fight over who is going to pay Britain's subs when we've gone?
Stasis is never on offer anywhere in world affairs. The status quo in our relationship with the EU was reluctant acquiescence on most things, with unbudgeable red lines on others. That would have continued.
UK economy could overtake Europe in three years, says media boss"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-will-boost-britain-says-german-business-chief-j5kcw7fh5
What happens if Deutsche actually goes pop ?
I suspect the European musings on this matter are entirely of the opportunistic nature. I presume that a solution to this 'problem' for the other non-EU parties is not deemed insurmountable.
https://www.unified-patent-court.org/faq/upc-and-its-judges
This presumably is one of the complexities of the Article 50 process, since we are a Contracting Member State and some arrangement will have to be made for us either to un-contract, or for a special exception be made for us to stay.
Obviously the EU might not be terribly keen to go down this route, and it looks like a moot point anyway given the briefings emanating from No 10.
Either that, or he knows what's about to happen at Deutsche Bank and Commerzebank
https://twitter.com/i24NEWS_EN/status/780780336955392000
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37477757
A very big story if it does get into serious trouble (although FWIW it has almost made up today's losses.)
The alternative, which some of the nuttier Brexiteers have suggested, is to ignore our commitments under the Lisbon Treaty and unilaterally abrogate it and the other European treaties. But that would be an unthinkable act of international legal vandalism.
The only conceivable way Deutsche holds up is with trillions of 'printed' Euros from the ECB, with the attendant devaluation and inflation that will bring to the whole EZ.
Let's hope and pray it doesn't go pop!!
To update the Euro football chant ... "Fuck off lawyers, we voted No."
The people have spoken, and having spoken move on.
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Big Sam's looking precarious. I bet there's a few words he'd like wiped out.
Depends what is meant by 'goes pop'. Deutsche has the option of raising money by soaking its investors. Not nice for them, but as Matthew Lynn points out in the telly today, the politics of intervention are horrendous for Merkel.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/09/27/deutsche-bank-is-too-big-to-fail-too-big-to-fail-means-it-will-not-fail/#3ecb08dd7012
I had not realized how poor Forbes articles could be. The entire piece should have been reduced to half of the final paragraph, to whit:
"Deutsche ... is still too big to fail. Therefore it will not be allowed to fail. ... no one is going to allow it to be replaced by a smouldering crater and whatever needs to be done to prevent that will be"
But if the main force keeping you in a relationship is what a pain in the arse it's going to be to separate, the relationship has no happy future.
After that we're into the realms of speculation, but depending on how bad it gets and how far the contagion spreads, it could potentially bring down Merkel and cause the Eurozone to begin to unravel.
Then again, it could just turn out to be an acutely embarrassing episode which is swiftly contained. Those of us who convinced ourselves that Greece would quit the Euro to avoid a permaslump have been proven wrong: the amount of political willpower and capital invested in this project is absolutely huge.
REMAIN 48%
Any other arrangements will have to be agreed by Treaty, which goes on a round robin of Commission (the bureaucrats led by Mr Juncker), Parliament then Commission. probably several passes. This can take years. Once it is agreed by those bodies, it then has to be written into national law in 30 or so parliaments (some countries have more than one parliament). Each of those parliaments have an effective veto and the whole ratification process takes a further couple of years.
The more we can get into the Exit Agreement, the better for us. There isn't a lot of time, so we are looking at either minimal change or minimal agreement, in my view.
Tom Watson: "lets get behind Jon Trickett as he masterminds our election campaign". What a time to be alive.
Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry had been under investigation by police after a pro-independence group reported a potential financial discrepancy in its accounts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37487841
Every country - and the EU itself - is party to the Treaty. For this reason, all trade agreements are subject to unanimity, and this is why the Netherlands was able to scupper a trade deal with the Ukraine.
However, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, the relationship between the EU and a departing state is decided by QMV. It would come into force as soon as the EU and the departing signed it, and not when all the individual countries (as they must inevitably do) ratify it.
Oh, but we can choose to be subject to the ECJ if we want to be and it will be our sovereign will to do so. Which is entirely different of course from being a member of a voluntary organisation wherein we are, er, subject to the ECJ.
Scottish Labour to save their deposit?
Public "no, you're not"
Labour " .... vote for us, get a microwave?"
Tom Watson gets standing ovation for praising Blair and Brown and saying Labour "needs to win elections". Jeremy Corbyn stays seated.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/780790947806384129