politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five months after the vote and BREXIT is as decisive an issue

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five months after the vote and BREXIT is as decisive an issue as ever

"undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper={}),window.datawrapper["paNvw"]={},window.datawrapper["paNvw"].embedDeltas={"100":880.8,"200":708.8,"300":653.8,"400":626.8,"500":599.8,"600":599.8,"700":599.8,"800":599.8,"900":599.8,"1000":572.8},window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-paNvw"),window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["paNvw"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])"paNvw"==b&&(window.datawrapper["paNvw"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px")});

Read the full story here

Theuniondivvie

Frit, like Pence

IanB2

Second like Zac

Surely there is a typo in this thread title, "divisive" is what was meant?

felix

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Theuniondivvie

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

How does an audience apologise? Does the FBI track them down and ask for individual 'sorry for being rude' notes?

Luckyguy1983

FPT:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FF43 said:

Dromedary said:

FF43 said:

I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.

How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?

What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.

A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.

At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.

Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.

OUT

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.

logical_song

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FF43 said:

Dromedary said:

FF43 said:

I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.

How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?

What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.

A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.

At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.

Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.

Was that lifted from 'Russia Today'?

GIN1138

Not much Regrexit here...

Theuniondivvie

MORE arse crawling.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/799982229187428352

felix

Theuniondivvie said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

How does an audience apologise? Does the FBI track them down and ask for individual 'sorry for being rude' notes?

I'd have hoped the actor who called Pence back at the end to lecture him might have apologised on their behalf. A theatre is a public place and people have free speech but Pence was attending as a private citizen I believe. In the end it's all about taste.

felix

OUT said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.

Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.

Bromptonaut

Tory splits widening.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

Good job Cameron lanced the boil.

Jonathan

Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.

But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.

Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.

Theuniondivvie

felix said:

OUT said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.

Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.

But Big Daddy Trump has.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.

PlatoSaid

Some PBers may find this interesting

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html

nunu

fpt:Nonsense from start to finish.

The Patriot Act is no longer in place, and no one in Congress is going to vote for something similar ever again.

So Speedy, there are no emergency powers the President could use to suspend rights then?

SimonStClare

I think we can all agree now that the EU was a concern for a great number of people afterall..!

MarkHopkins

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Mr. Hopkins, indeed. I'll believe we're leaving when we've left.

felix

Theuniondivvie said:

felix said:

OUT said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.

Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.

But Big Daddy Trump has.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.

Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.

felix

Jonathan said:

Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.

But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.

Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.

Don't disagree - but people's lives are being affected adversely by the continued in-fighting on both sides and while the extremists continue to play their silly games this can only get worse.

MP_SE

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

felix said:

OUT said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.

Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.

But Big Daddy Trump has.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.

Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.

There is a time and a place to protest and it is not in a theatre.

foxinsoxuk

Bromptonaut said:

Tory splits widening.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

Good job Cameron lanced the boil.

Speaking medically, when you lance a boil the pus runs out!

Theuniondivvie

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

felix said:

OUT said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.

Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.

But Big Daddy Trump has.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.

Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.

Dr Evadne Hinge is reborn and walks among us!

Dadge

Jonathan said:

Brexit is Brexit, we're doing it for good or ill.

But the way this was planned for and managed since the vote has been woeful.

Much of the division has been caused by that mismanagement rather than the change itself.

This is true, partly because of inane soundbites like "brexit is brexit", and the attitude that "we're doing it for good or ill".

Although in some ways it's good to have a brexit sceptic as PM (Since there are different kinds of brexiters, a brexiter PM would be involved in a power struggle; and May will, one would imagine, seek to retain the benefits of EU membership) it's hardly satisfying for anyone to see a major policy being implemented by someone who doesn't believe it's in the best interests of the country, i.e. by someone whose heart is not in it.

OUT

MP_SE said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

felix said:

OUT said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.

Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.

But Big Daddy Trump has.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.

Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.

There is a time and a place to protest and it is not in a theatre.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

felix

Theuniondivvie said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

felix said:

OUT said:

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Osborne at the Paralympics, Cameron at Wimbledon.
They just shrugged it off.
Going to be a long four years if he gets upset anytime this happens.

Pence has said nothing about it as I understand. The fact that its not the first time people have been ignorant does not make it right.

But Big Daddy Trump has.
Perhaps everyone should take take Trump's causing offence>apology ratio as the model in these situations.

Or maybe people in theatres should stop behaving like football hooligans.

Dr Evadne Hinge is reborn and walks among us!

I'll Bracket [sic] that comment as a compliment.

partypoliticalorphan

It's divisive but is it decisive? For years OGH and the pollsters told us that the EU was way down the list of voter priorities. Has that changed?

Bromptonaut

foxinsoxuk said:

Bromptonaut said:

Tory splits widening.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

Good job Cameron lanced the boil.

Speaking medically, when you lance a boil the pus runs out!

But it's meant to start the healing process. Whereas...

rcs1000

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

chestnut

13% of Remainers are no longer sure that leaving was wrong or are now certain that leaving was right.

It's only 8% of Leavers who have changed their minds or who have expressed doubts about leaving.

That would point to a bigger Leave win in a re-run any time soon.

One in eight Remainers seem to have decided that project fear was project bullshit.

PlatoSaid

And because so many here lurve him, here's the TMZ intv with Trump. Filmed back in September but not broadcast until now. Hillary refused to do one hence the delay.

https://youtu.be/qi1df15VmCs

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Glenn, this has shades of iconoclasts and iconodules.

Stark_Dawning

I've come to the conclusion that if Brexit goes to a Commons vote then it will be scuppered - by the 60 hardcore Tory Leavers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

It's bound to happen. There'll be a least one EU agreement that May wants to retain, but which the hardcores will denounce as a sneaky betrayal and EU membership in all but name. If it stops Brexit then so be it - it'll be the government's/Leavers' fault for being duplicitous.

viewcode

williamglenn said:

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.

MarkHopkins

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

"Article 50 is revocable"

Proof please.

williamglenn

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

"Article 50 is revocable"

Proof please.

Proof that it isn't?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Glenn, proof there isn't a giant chocolate teapot orbiting the Earth?

williamglenn

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.

Extending the negotiations requires unanimity. Revoking the notification is purely in the UK's gift.

MarkHopkins

williamglenn said:

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

"Article 50 is revocable"

Proof please.

Proof that it isn't?

You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

PlatoSaid

Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played

williamglenn

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

"Article 50 is revocable"

Proof please.

Proof that it isn't?

You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2

viewcode

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

Erm, given that reversing an article 50 application requires the consent of others that cannot be forced, "revocable" is the wrong word here.

Extending the negotiations requires unanimity. Revoking the notification is purely in the UK's gift.

"Requesting it be reversed/ignored" is in the UK's gift. "Revoked" is not in the UK's gift. "Revoked" has the assumption of inevitability. If you had gone for "not inevitable" I'd've agreed with you, although I would have insisted you added the rider "...provided the other countries agreed"

MarkHopkins

williamglenn said:

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

"Article 50 is revocable"

Proof please.

Proof that it isn't?

You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Which implies it is not revocable.

Scott_P

MarkHopkins said:

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Non-sequitor

If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

That doesn't mean you can't revoke

williamglenn

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

"Article 50 is revocable"

Proof please.

Proof that it isn't?

You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Which implies it is not revocable.

It implies merely that it is badly drafted, which it is.

RobD

Is there any discussion in the treaty itself that it can be revoked?

PeterC

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

MarkHopkins said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.

I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

The commons won't obstruct, and if the Lords did, then general election time.

Once article 50 is invoked, any "shackles" put in as amendments become irrelevant.

Article 50 is revocable. That will not be the end of it.

"Article 50 is revocable"

Proof please.

Proof that it isn't?

You claim that A50 is revocable, but why do you believe that?

https://www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Which implies it is not revocable.

The truth is obscure as the treaty makes no mention of it. The matter can only be resolved definitively by the ECJ. The issue is a serious one as if A50 is not reversible and the negotiations break down we face a WTO cliff edge in 2019.

felix

partypoliticalorphan said:

It's divisive but is it decisive? For years OGH and the pollsters told us that the EU was way down the list of voter priorities. Has that changed?

It sure ain't DEVISIVE as above cos it ain't a word

felix

Stark_Dawning said:

I've come to the conclusion that if Brexit goes to a Commons vote then it will be scuppered - by the 60 hardcore Tory Leavers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/

It's bound to happen. There'll be a least one EU agreement that May wants to retain, but which the hardcores will denounce as a sneaky betrayal and EU membership in all but name. If it stops Brexit then so be it - it'll be the government's/Leavers' fault for being duplicitous.

Some of the 'Ultras' really are that stupid but I don't think they'll do it in the end.

PClipp

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.

As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....

RobD

PClipp said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.

As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....

Isn't each party pushing their own interpretation of the vote?

Charles

Scott_P said:

MarkHopkins said:

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Non-sequitor

If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

That doesn't mean you can't revoke

It implies it. Otherwise you just revoke and resubmit to get an unilateral extension

MarkHopkins

Scott_P said:

MarkHopkins said:

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Non-sequitor

If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

That doesn't mean you can't revoke

There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

Charles

MarkHopkins said:

Scott_P said:

MarkHopkins said:

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Non-sequitor

If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

That doesn't mean you can't revoke

There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...

ReallyEvilMuffin

Charles said:

MarkHopkins said:

Scott_P said:

MarkHopkins said:

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Non-sequitor

If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

That doesn't mean you can't revoke

There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...

You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.

PClipp

RobD said:

PClipp said:

MarkHopkins said:

Brexit is going to get a lot more divisive yet.
I can see the Court ruling that a proper bill has to be put before parliament before A50.
Then certain MPs and Lords delaying the bill, to delay or stop the whole process.
And a lot of angry people feeling they have been cheated out of their referendum vote.

A lot of people were feeling angry because of the referendum vote. Cameron could have asked a proper question, and made the referendum valid.

As it is, 60 right-wing MPs are telling us what our vote meant. Really, what just their interpretation of our vote is. The whole business is an utter shambles. To think that once upon a time the Conservative Party was looked on as the party of good government....

Isn't each party pushing their own interpretation of the vote?

Of course, Mr D. Which is why it was a stupid question.

nunu

Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject 2h2 hours ago

Trump's reported victory margin in Arizona (3.57%) is now less than his margin in North Carolina (3.74%)

kjohnw

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Dadge

What are the odds that the govt will back out of taking Brexit to the Supreme Court?

As others have said, including the gang of three Tory remainers this morning, going to the court seems like a political mistake. If instead the govt goes to parliament and asserts its primacy in deciding national matters, Brexit will proceed as a national project with a relatively short delay. Whereas the court will have to make a constitutional decision about which delegated/devolved matter takes precedence: in this case, the Brexit referendum or the Scottish parliament. Potentially this could hold Brexit up by 2 or 3 years.

Alistair

felix said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Frit, like Pence

The booing was rude and Trump was correct to ask for an apology. Not the same as banning newspapers/speakers etc from campuses. no doubt the booers felt better for their actions - I suspect that many of them didn't even bother to vote in the actual election.

Safe space, safe space

rottenborough

Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

Charles

ReallyEvilMuffin said:

Charles said:

MarkHopkins said:

Scott_P said:

MarkHopkins said:

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Non-sequitor

If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

That doesn't mean you can't revoke

There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...

You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.

That's already covered in the extension clause.

If the economic chaos is so severe then the UK is forced to return as a supplicant - they wouldn't want them to have a unilateral right to cancel the process and revert to the status quo.

Charles

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

RobD

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?

chestnut

How many ways can people try to find to invalidate the result?

The question was straightforward - leave or remain.

HurstLlama

rottenborough said:

Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.

rcs1000

ReallyEvilMuffin said:

Charles said:

MarkHopkins said:

Scott_P said:

MarkHopkins said:

If it is revocable, then the two year deadline with extension only by unanimity is meaningless.

Non-sequitor

If you don't revoke, there is a 2 year time limit, extensible by agreement.

That doesn't mean you can't revoke

There is no mention of revocation in A50. Therefore people will draw conclusion from other international treaties and what other clauses in A50 to decide if it can be revoked.

My point is that for the 2-year extension to have any relevance with the article, then the presumption would be that it cannot be revocable.

It may not be the only point that applies, or be the prevailing one, but I haven't yet seen any real arguments against this.

EDIT: Charles explains it more succinctly.

I once spent 2 years negotiating a deal where the contract had a strict 90 day window before the 2 parties lost control of the process. The clock was suspended by mutual agreement on day 89...

You're forgetting that it is 100% not in the EU's interest to have there be an extendible/revokable deadline. We know the EU values keeping the EU together over all else, so why would they allow a fudge that makes it possible for other states to try to leave to renegotiate, cause a lot of economic uncertainty and strife only to cancel leaving.

The EU doesn't get a vote; 27 countries do.

Alistair

Omfg, he actually demanded it be a safe place, I'd only seen the other tweet.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Chestnut and Mr. Charles, indeed.

Mr. Llama, you might be interested (given your liking for the old cartography) in this post:
http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/writing-blog/the-map-of-denland

AndyJS

PlatoSaid said:

Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played

Thanks Plato, looks interesting.

Charles

RobD said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?

I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)

williamglenn

Charles said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?

I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)

EU membership is equally a domestic affair.

RobD

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?

I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)

EU membership is equally a domestic affair.

Does the Scottish Parliament ratify international treaties that have implications in Scotland?

Charles

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?

I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)

EU membership is equally a domestic affair.

No, it's a treaty between sovereign states

nunu

rottenborough said:

Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?

another_richard

HurstLlama said:

rottenborough said:

Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.

To be fair Cameron hasn't needed to do his own spinning for many years.

There's been no shortage of arselickers willing to do it for him.

What I suspect Cameron has had a shortage of though was people willing to tell him inconvenient truths.

rcs1000

AndyJS said:

PlatoSaid said:

Interesting long read on persuasion as recommended by Scott Adams

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-19/were-being-played

Thanks Plato, looks interesting.

Scott Adams book "How to Fail at Nearly everything and still win big" is well worth reading

RobD

nunu said:

rottenborough said:

Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?

No sign of that happening.

surbiton

HurstLlama said:

rottenborough said:

Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.

That's right. Didn't he tell the Council of Ministers that he was a winner !

williamglenn

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?

I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)

EU membership is equally a domestic affair.

No, it's a treaty between sovereign states

Either it goes beyond that, in which case it isn't, or it doesn't, in which case the sovereignty argument for leaving is bogus.

surbiton

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RobD

surbiton said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An appeal to the ECJ just wont happen.

Pulpstar

Some reports from on the ground:

1) HS2 is a divisive issue for the blue rinse brigade. But it is definitely going to happen, Sir Pat said so himself Thursday.
2) Apparently Osborne "would be lynched" by BTL investors, he is enemy numero uno,
3) There is a feeling Lib Dem strength could be being underestimated.
4) Corbyn is seen as a massive asset for the Tories.

Charles

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

Wouldn't it be strictly a reserved matter anyway?

I'd assume so. All foreign affairs is (AFAIK)

EU membership is equally a domestic affair.

No, it's a treaty between sovereign states

Either it goes beyond that, in which case it isn't, or it doesn't, in which case the sovereignty argument for leaving is bogus.

No, it doesn't. And no, it isn't.

The sovereignty argument is more to do with the trajectory of development (ie the EU is on an inevitable path towards a formal union/federation - in my view it either has to integrate further or to fall apart)

There are people who believe that sovereignty shared is sovereignty diminished, but would be more properly described as "freedom of action" diminished as a free state always reserves the right to pull out.

Sean_F

nunu said:

rottenborough said:

Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

how did that end up working in Scotland? oh yeah SNP are the dominant party in Scotland now. PM Farage anyone?

George Cunningham's amendment seemed clever at the time, but really fostered resentment subsequently.

Once there is a majority vote to leave the EU, our position within the organisation becomes untenable.

another_richard

Pulpstar said:

Some reports from on the ground:

1) HS2 is a divisive issue for the blue rinse brigade. But it is definitely going to happen, Sir Pat said so himself Thursday.
2) Apparently Osborne "would be lynched" by BTL investors, he is enemy numero uno,
3) There is a feeling Lib Dem strength could be being underestimated.
4) Corbyn is seen as a massive asset for the Tories.

Which ground ?

And my opinion of Osborne was just raised a notch.

Charles

surbiton said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...

(which is why I said it...)

another_richard

' The big development this week is that the Scottish and Welsh governments have been joined to the action sparking of the speculation that Nicola Sturgeon could have a veto. '

They'll have as much of a veto as the leaders of any other county council.

SandyRentool

If there were a scenario under which Holyrood could block the UK leaving the EU then England and Wales could have a referendum to leave the UK and then be booted out of the EU.

williamglenn

Charles said:

surbiton said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...

(which is why I said it...)

Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?

Big_G_NorthWales

This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.

This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.

Positives for Brexit

rottenborough

another_richard said:

HurstLlama said:

rottenborough said:

Why the hell didn't Cameron put a threshold of difference on the vote?

Why didn't Cameron do a lot things, Mr. Borough? Possibly because he was an arrogant tosser who believed in his own spin. A rich little boy who had always got his own way.

To be fair Cameron hasn't needed to do his own spinning for many years.

There's been no shortage of arselickers willing to do it for him.

What I suspect Cameron has had a shortage of though was people willing to tell him inconvenient truths.

Except perhaps Osborne, who told him it was a crazy idea to have an EU referendum and was ignored.

IanB2

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.

This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.

Positives for Brexit

Less chocolate for the same money? I don't recall the Brexit nutjobs ever telling us this would happen?

Essexit

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

surbiton said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...

(which is why I said it...)

Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?

The polling evidence indicates that Scots would not leave the UK to stay in the EU.

nunu

Alistair said:

Omfg, he actually demanded it be a safe place, I'd only seen the other tweet.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947

He's just sticking up for his special snowflake Mike Pence.

another_richard

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This last week has seen toblerone and maltesers reduce their size but maintain the price due to the currency devaluation.

This has to be a win - win. Keeps inflation in check and reduces the other inflation, obesity.

Positives for Brexit

I think the reduced size of the packs would be taken into account when calculation the CPI.

But from what I can see in the supermarkets the price of regular food hasn't changed (if anything tis slightly cheaper than a year ago) whilst it is branded chocolates etc where attempts are being made to increase the profit margins.

Big_G_NorthWales

Apparently the euro has had it's worst run in years and is expected to reach parity with the dollar next week. Commentators are expecting it to continue it's decline into the year end as the US is expected to increase their interest rates.

Is this a real threat for Europe as some are saying or do they have anything they can do to mitigate the fall

Charles

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

surbiton said:

Charles said:

kjohnw said:

can anyone advise if the Supreme Court rules that Holyrood has to be consulted and approve article 50 for it to be triggered what the outcome would be for brexit

Probably suspension of the Holyrood Parliament

It would be a massive overreach by the Supreme Court to interfere in the balance of authority between Westminster and Holyrood.

I am sure the Supreme Court will act within the law. If the Brexiters do not like the Court's ruling, they can always go to the ECJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Westminster would be acting within the law to suspend Holyrood...

(which is why I said it...)

Are you any closer to the realisation that you can keep the UK together or you can have Brexit but not both?

I disagree.