Steve Baker suggesting spending during the campaign
Yes, thank you, I can read.
Just because one is within the letter of the law and the other isn't, doesn't mean that the £9m spent days before the campaign began, using the official branding of Her Majesty's Government, wasn't deeply unfair.
Remain did all they could to tie the leave campaign's hands behind their backs before the campaign even began.
The result? 52/48
What someone said earlier, pretty much. No side came out of this well. The Remain campaign was rubbish and I felt ashamed and humilliated to be part of it. It was about the worst political campaign of my lifetime, only surpassed by strong and stable the following year.
A leading Eurosceptic campaign group is planning a “criminal” attempt to get around the £7 million referendum spending limits, leaked emails suggest.
A leading figure in Vote Leave, one of the two groups battling for official recognition to run the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union, told colleagues that his organisation has found a way “to spend as much money as is necessary to win”.
He said that Vote Leave, which he helps to oversee, hoped to get around the spending ceiling by using a series of front organisations.
Steve Baker, the co-chairman of Conservatives for Britain, wrote in an email that Vote Leave wanted to get around the limit by using front organisations.
“It is open to the Vote Leave family to create separate legal entities, each of which could spend £700,000: Vote Leave will be able to spend as much money as is necessary to win the referendum,” he said in an email sent on Saturday afternoon.
I really hope not. Why should EU citizens have more rights than UK ones?
Ardent Brexiteer alert.
Um No. Just someone who believes in everyone being equal before the law. Obviously a concept that is alien to you - along with basic principles of democracy from what I have seen.
Good of you to jump in. We've obviously reached the Tyndall shed, fractious insults from now on I guess.
I really hope not. Why should EU citizens have more rights than UK ones?
Ardent Brexiteer alert.
Um No. Just someone who believes in everyone being equal before the law. Obviously a concept that is alien to you - along with basic principles of democracy from what I have seen.
Good of you to jump in. We've obviously reached the Tyndall shed, fractious insults from now on I guess.
You make stupid comments and you get shot down for them. Not sure what you have to moan about.
In case you missed it I have posted throughout the day. If people make sensible comments, even if I don't agree with them then they get polite answers. If they behave like idiots they deserve all they get.
Steve Baker suggesting spending during the campaign
Yes, thank you, I can read.
Just because one is within the letter of the law and the other isn't, doesn't mean that the £9m spent days before the campaign began, using the official branding of Her Majesty's Government, wasn't deeply unfair.
Remain did all they could to tie the leave campaign's hands behind their backs before the campaign even began.
The result? 52/48
What someone said earlier, pretty much. No side came out of this well. The Remain campaign was rubbish and I felt ashamed and humilliated to be part of it. It was about the worst political campaign of my lifetime, only surpassed by strong and stable the following year.
Strong and stable was awful but it did at least scrape most seats in the Commons, Remain actually lost
Steve Baker suggesting spending during the campaign
Yes, thank you, I can read.
Just because one is within the letter of the law and the other isn't, doesn't mean that the £9m spent days before the campaign began, using the official branding of Her Majesty's Government, wasn't deeply unfair.
Remain did all they could to tie the leave campaign's hands behind their backs before the campaign even began.
The result? 52/48
What someone said earlier, pretty much. No side came out of this well. The Remain campaign was rubbish and I felt ashamed and humilliated to be part of it. It was about the worst political campaign of my lifetime, only surpassed by strong and stable the following year.
Indeed. Neither side acquitted itself with grace. As I said on here the other day, I cast my vote for leave *despite* the leave campaign, not because of it.
This is a very good read on how participating in the democratic process used to be more important than winning. It's a shame that both sides seem to have lost sight of that in recent years.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
I really hope not. Why should EU citizens have more rights than UK ones?
Ardent Brexiteer alert.
Um No. Just someone who believes in everyone being equal before the law. Obviously a concept that is alien to you - along with basic principles of democracy from what I have seen.
Steve Baker suggesting spending during the campaign
Yes, thank you, I can read.
Just because one is within the letter of the law and the other isn't, doesn't mean that the £9m spent days before the campaign began, using the official branding of Her Majesty's Government, wasn't deeply unfair.
Remain did all they could to tie the leave campaign's hands behind their backs before the campaign even began.
The result? 52/48
What someone said earlier, pretty much. No side came out of this well. The Remain campaign was rubbish and I felt ashamed and humilliated to be part of it. It was about the worst political campaign of my lifetime, only surpassed by strong and stable the following year.
Strong and stable was awful but it did at least scrape most seats in the Commons, Remain actually lost
I really hope not. Why should EU citizens have more rights than UK ones?
Ardent Brexiteer alert.
Um No. Just someone who believes in everyone being equal before the law. Obviously a concept that is alien to you - along with basic principles of democracy from what I have seen.
Good of you to jump in. We've obviously reached the Tyndall shed, fractious insults from now on I guess.
You make stupid comments and you get shot down for them. Not sure what you have to moan about.
In case you missed it I have posted throughout the day. If people make sensible comments, even if I don't agree with them then they get polite answers. If they behave like idiots they deserve all they get.
You can thank me later.
Aggressive & pompous sanctimony plus fractious insults, my cup runneth over!
This is a very good read on how participating in the democratic process used to be more important than winning. It's a shame that both sides seem to have lost sight of that in recent years.
We're participating in it now. The democratic process doesn't stop between elections.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
Can anyone explain why for the last few weeks I've been seeing ' Big freeze imminent, snow on its way, Britain to be colder than Iceland, worst winter for decades ' headlines yet its above 10 deg C in the middle of the night ?
Sells papers
Cold weather in winter shock!
Express usually does it about now.
The article does have some great pictures of frost covered autumn sunrises though
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
1) The polling at the time suggested it was a good idea
2) It was worked for the Tories in 2015, framing it as Dave v Ed
But I was in a very small minority at the time who was warning Mrs May was a bit crap and a pound shop Gordon Brown.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
I didn't say it was a slip of the tongue, I said analysing peoples' language so minutely likely won't make anyone look good, and the point I was attempting to make was the few times it actually does indicate something rather than either a slip or someone over analysing are probably not worth the effort, not least because you only see it in retrospect anyway.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
The poster (there was only one!) that I saw in a farmers field was for Theresa May's Conservatives.
Tens of thousands out of how many millions of movements?
from what I gather Joris Luyendijk is a table dancer at the Loose Zipper Night club in Amsterdam, I suppose he;s looking forward to some trade in future years
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
1) The polling at the time suggested it was a good idea
2) It was worked for the Tories in 2015, framing it as Dave v Ed
But I was in a very small minority at the time who was warning Mrs May was a bit crap and a pound shop Gordon Brown.
Yes, but you leave it to everyone else to frame it as "who do you want to be PM on 9 June?"
Having May herself talking about "my manifesto" rather than "our manifesto" looks very poor.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
1) The polling at the time suggested it was a good idea
2) It was worked for the Tories in 2015, framing it as Dave v Ed
Like with Clinton's campaign in November, the bitter truth is that a lot of evidence suggested it would work until it didn't. Easy to mock in hindsight, but when Corbyn had the worst leadership ratings ever (or near enough) and May excellent personal ratings can you really blame them?
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
The poster (there was only one!) that I saw in a farmers field was for Theresa May's Conservatives.
They really thought she was an asset.
As TSE, never a fan, pointed out, it made some amount of sense at the time. Personally I found it a little surprising May seemed so popular, but there seemed evidence to back it up at the time, the decision to focus on her initially was not as stupid as hindsight makes it seem.
This is a very good read on how participating in the democratic process used to be more important than winning. It's a shame that both sides seem to have lost sight of that in recent years.
We're participating in it now. The democratic process doesn't stop between elections.
If you read the article, it is a lament about how instead of understanding that other people have different perspectives that are equally valid, we instead choose to throw our toys out of the pram, get angry, and call the other side names like children in a playground, instead of respecting each other's right to hold differing opinions.
This is a very good read on how participating in the democratic process used to be more important than winning. It's a shame that both sides seem to have lost sight of that in recent years.
We're participating in it now. The democratic process doesn't stop between elections.
If you read the article, it is a lament about how instead of understanding that other people have different perspectives that are equally valid, we instead choose to throw our toys out of the pram, get angry, and call the other side names like children in a playground, instead of respecting each other's right to hold differing opinions.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
1) The polling at the time suggested it was a good idea
2) It was worked for the Tories in 2015, framing it as Dave v Ed
But I was in a very small minority at the time who was warning Mrs May was a bit crap and a pound shop Gordon Brown.
probably all your non stop Osborne caterwauling crowded your warning out
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
I don't think it was ever a permanent seat, which just goes to show the strength of the UK judiciary.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
The poster (there was only one!) that I saw in a farmers field was for Theresa May's Conservatives.
They really thought she was an asset.
As TSE, never a fan, pointed out, it made some amount of sense at the time. Personally I found it a little surprising May seemed so popular, but there seemed evidence to back it up at the time, the decision to focus on her initially was not as stupid as hindsight makes it seem.
It did, the locals and Mayorals indicated a Labour shellacking.
And there was this kind of polling, showing Corbyn was electoral poison, with all voters, and in particular with older voters.
Steve Baker suggesting spending during the campaign
Yes, thank you, I can read.
Just because one is within the letter of the law and the other isn't, doesn't mean that the £9m spent days before the campaign began, using the official branding of Her Majesty's Government, wasn't deeply unfair.
Remain did all they could to tie the leave campaign's hands behind their backs before the campaign even began.
The result? 52/48
What someone said earlier, pretty much. No side came out of this well. The Remain campaign was rubbish and I felt ashamed and humilliated to be part of it. It was about the worst political campaign of my lifetime, only surpassed by strong and stable the following year.
Strong and stable was awful but it did at least scrape most seats in the Commons, Remain actually lost
Angela ran on strong and stable :-)
Again Merkel won most votes and seats, it was just the worst CDU voteshare since the 1940s
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
I don't think it was ever a permanent seat, which just goes to show the strength of the UK judiciary.
I really hope not. Why should EU citizens have more rights than UK ones?
Ardent Brexiteer alert.
Um No. Just someone who believes in everyone being equal before the law. Obviously a concept that is alien to you - along with basic principles of democracy from what I have seen.
Good of you to jump in. We've obviously reached the Tyndall shed, fractious insults from now on I guess.
You make stupid comments and you get shot down for them. Not sure what you have to moan about.
In case you missed it I have posted throughout the day. If people make sensible comments, even if I don't agree with them then they get polite answers. If they behave like idiots they deserve all they get.
You can thank me later.
Aggressive & pompous sanctimony plus fractious insults, my cup runneth over!
I know it is not necessarily your fault that you are both rather dumb and consistently wrong in just about everything you write. But I do see it as a public service to point out your idiocy. Plus I get a great deal of satisfaction from it. It is akin to swatting flies.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
The poster (there was only one!) that I saw in a farmers field was for Theresa May's Conservatives.
They really thought she was an asset.
As TSE, never a fan, pointed out, it made some amount of sense at the time. Personally I found it a little surprising May seemed so popular, but there seemed evidence to back it up at the time, the decision to focus on her initially was not as stupid as hindsight makes it seem.
It did, the locals and Mayorals indicated a Labour shellacking.
And there was this kind of polling, showing Corbyn was electoral poison, with all voters, and in particular with older voters.
The Tories actually increased their voteshare by 4% from the locals, it was just the LD voteshare collapsed by 11% from the locals with virtually all of that going to Labour. Labour also won the Liverpool and Manchester mayoral elections comfortably.
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
I don't think it was ever a permanent seat, which just goes to show the strength of the UK judiciary.
No but certain commentators seem to think it should have been. And I really don't think our judiciary are any stronger than Canada's, or Germany's or Norway's.
I didn't realise that Theresa May said at the manifesto launch that she was launching "my manifesto."
Thoroughly arrogant.
While that might well be the case, I kind of feel analysing every specific utterance people make for linguistic clues to their attitude is a game no one will come out well from if they are the subject.
That wasn't a slip of the tongue. The plan was, make it all about T May v Jezza and it would be a walk in the park. Utterly stupid.
The poster (there was only one!) that I saw in a farmers field was for Theresa May's Conservatives.
They really thought she was an asset.
As TSE, never a fan, pointed out, it made some amount of sense at the time. Personally I found it a little surprising May seemed so popular, but there seemed evidence to back it up at the time, the decision to focus on her initially was not as stupid as hindsight makes it seem.
It did, the locals and Mayorals indicated a Labour shellacking.
And there was this kind of polling, showing Corbyn was electoral poison, with all voters, and in particular with older voters.
I like how this programme is saying Labour won seats 'previously thought hopeless' like Chris Ruane winning back Vale of Clwyd. In 2015 I was phoning for Jamie Davis in Vale of Clwyd and did not think the Tories had a hope of taking the seat then.
Much as I am pleased about it, I must admit I am also very surprised. I genuinely thought Corbyn had seen the way things were going in his party and would have voted for the amendment.
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
There's always been a belief that the roots of Common Law coupled with the high competence of British judges, and impartiality therein was a great thing to have on the ICJ and would/does set a great example to others.
Compare and contrast the most contentious political case ruled upon by the American and UK highest appellate courts in recent years.
The legally sound Article 50 judgment versus the legally and morally dishonest judgment of Bush v Gore.
I really hope not. Why should EU citizens have more rights than UK ones?
Ardent Brexiteer alert.
Um No. Just someone who believes in everyone being equal before the law. Obviously a concept that is alien to you - along with basic principles of democracy from what I have seen.
Good of you to jump in. We've obviously reached the Tyndall shed, fractious insults from now on I guess.
You make stupid comments and you get shot down for them. Not sure what you have to moan about.
In case you missed it I have posted throughout the day. If people make sensible comments, even if I don't agree with them then they get polite answers. If they behave like idiots they deserve all they get.
You can thank me later.
Aggressive & pompous sanctimony plus fractious insults, my cup runneth over!
I know it is not necessarily your fault that you are both rather dumb and consistently wrong in just about everything you write. But I do see it as a public service to point out your idiocy. Plus I get a great deal of satisfaction from it. It is akin to swatting flies.
What a pompous & thin skinned chap you are. Unfortunately a PB type rather than a one off.
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
There's always been a belief that the roots of Common Law coupled with the high competence of British judges, and impartiality therein was a great thing to have on the ICJ and would/does set a great example to others.
Compare and contrast the most contentious political case ruled upon by the American and UK Appellate Courts in recent years.
The legally sound Article 50 judgment versus the legally and morally dishonest judgment of Bush v Gore.
I'm by no means an ardent Brexiteer, but the ECJ having powers over UK residents with no reciprocity of a UK court having the same over Brits in the EU would be an outrage. I think the government would lose the faith of many people who are still sympathetic to them if they did that.
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
There's always been a belief that the roots of Common Law coupled with the high competence of British judges, and impartiality therein was a great thing to have on the ICJ and would/does set a great example to others.
Compare and contrast the most contentious political case ruled upon by the American and UK Appellate Courts in recent years.
The legally sound Article 50 judgment versus the legally and morally dishonest judgment of Bush v Gore.
I think it is rather unfair to draw a comparison between the UK and US courts as an example when I was talking about Germany, Canada and Norway. Do you genuinely think they are any less competent or independent than the UK judges? Canada also has roots in Common Law and I don't think they would be any less valuable as a member of the Court than the UK.
I'm by no means an ardent Brexiteer, but the ECJ having powers over UK residents with no reciprocity of a UK court having the same over Brits in the EU would be an outrage. I think the government would lose the faith of many people who are still sympathetic to them if they did that.
They are still ending free movement and leaving the single market and ending ECJ jurisdiction in most other areas. Though it may lose a few Tories to UKIP it may win back a few Remainers as well
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
There's always been a belief that the roots of Common Law coupled with the high competence of British judges, and impartiality therein was a great thing to have on the ICJ and would/does set a great example to others.
Compare and contrast the most contentious political case ruled upon by the American and UK highest appellate courts in recent years.
The legally sound Article 50 judgment versus the legally and morally dishonest judgment of Bush v Gore.
Oh well, the rest of world doesn't know what it's losing then. Just like Zimbabwe kicking out the evil colonialists.
I'm by no means an ardent Brexiteer, but the ECJ having powers over UK residents with no reciprocity of a UK court having the same over Brits in the EU would be an outrage. I think the government would lose the faith of many people who are still sympathetic to them if they did that.
We do the same with The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with twelve independent nations.
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
There's always been a belief that the roots of Common Law coupled with the high competence of British judges, and impartiality therein was a great thing to have on the ICJ and would/does set a great example to others.
Compare and contrast the most contentious political case ruled upon by the American and UK Appellate Courts in recent years.
The legally sound Article 50 judgment versus the legally and morally dishonest judgment of Bush v Gore.
I think it is rather unfair to draw a comparison between the UK and US courts as an example when I was talking about Germany, Canada and Norway. Do you genuinely think they are any less competent or independent than the UK judges? Canada also has roots in Common Law and I don't think they would be any less valuable as a member of the Court than the UK.
Presumably there's plenty of worthy judges from many places who would be so valuable, and as long as our judiciary is top notch, surely one day we'll have a judge on there again.
I really hope not. Why should EU citizens have more rights than UK ones?
Ardent Brexiteer alert.
Um No. Just someone who believes in everyone being equal before the law. Obviously a concept that is alien to you - along with basic principles of democracy from what I have seen.
Good of you to jump in. We've obviously reached the Tyndall shed, fractious insults from now on I guess.
You make stupid comments and you get shot down for them. Not sure what you have to moan about.
In case you missed it I have posted throughout the day. If people make sensible comments, even if I don't agree with them then they get polite answers. If they behave like idiots they deserve all they get.
You can thank me later.
Aggressive & pompous sanctimony plus fractious insults, my cup runneth over!
I know it is not necessarily your fault that you are both rather dumb and consistently wrong in just about everything you write. But I do see it as a public service to point out your idiocy. Plus I get a great deal of satisfaction from it. It is akin to swatting flies.
What a pompous & thin skinned chap you are. Unfortunately a PB type rather than a one off.
LOL. So now you have moved from railing against one individual to attacking a whole set of PB posters. And all because you are simply too ignorant and ill educated to make worthwhile comments on here. I can understand your overwhelming sense of inferiority but the answer to that is to stop making dumb posts rather than sulking when someone points out your deficiencies.
I'm by no means an ardent Brexiteer, but the ECJ having powers over UK residents with no reciprocity of a UK court having the same over Brits in the EU would be an outrage. I think the government would lose the faith of many people who are still sympathetic to them if they did that.
We do the same with The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with twelve independent nations.
I'm guessing we should have a bit more independence in the world than some tiny Caribbean islands.
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
I don't think it was ever a permanent seat, which just goes to show the strength of the UK judiciary.
Or the weakness of that of other countries.
In short, the UK's Greenwood was 9-5 up against India's Bhandari in the UN Security Council votes and about 120-70 down in the General Assembly. You need to win both and the UK was on the verge of trying to use the joint conference dispute mechanism, which would have swung it against Bhandari. But that mechanism is controversial, and might not even be lawful, and the UK pulled Greenwood's candidacy when it became clear that goose was cooked and stalemates would sour relations.
France, Sweden and Italy were, according to leaks, behind Greenwood. Fat use this EU membership is.
I really hope not. Why should EU citizens have more rights than UK ones?
Ardent Brexiteer alert.
Um No. Just someone who believes in everyone being equal before the law. Obviously a concept that is alien to you - along with basic principles of democracy from what I have seen.
Good of you to jump in. We've obviously reached the Tyndall shed, fractious insults from now on I guess.
You make stupid comments and you get shot down for them. Not sure what you have to moan about.
In case you missed it I have posted throughout the day. If people make sensible comments, even if I don't agree with them then they get polite answers. If they behave like idiots they deserve all they get.
You can thank me later.
Aggressive & pompous sanctimony plus fractious insults, my cup runneth over!
I know it is not necessarily your fault that you are both rather dumb and consistently wrong in just about everything you write. But I do see it as a public service to point out your idiocy. Plus I get a great deal of satisfaction from it. It is akin to swatting flies.
What a pompous & thin skinned chap you are. Unfortunately a PB type rather than a one off.
LOL. So now you have moved from railing against one individual to attacking a whole set of PB posters. And all because you are simply too ignorant and ill educated to make worthwhile comments on here. I can understand your overwhelming sense of inferiority but the answer to that is to stop making dumb posts rather than sulking when someone points out your deficiencies.
Paging Surbiton, seems Jezza is not as 'born again Europhile' as you were suggesting at the weekend!
Jezza now a not-so-closeted Leaver.
Surprising that its a surprise to some. I still reckon he spoilt his Referendum vote by putting a cross against both.
I agree, I highly doubt Corbyn actually voted Remain even if he did not vote Leave either so he can technically say he did not vote for Brexit himself.
I'm by no means an ardent Brexiteer, but the ECJ having powers over UK residents with no reciprocity of a UK court having the same over Brits in the EU would be an outrage. I think the government would lose the faith of many people who are still sympathetic to them if they did that.
We do the same with The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with twelve independent nations.
I don't think the UK attached any conditionality on that. The other countries are free to cut their ties with that court at any time.
BBC: Britain to lose seat on International Court of Justice for the first time since it was set up in 1946.
Another Brexit dividend...
Was that really Brexit related? Sounds as though India's candidate had the backing of a big majority in the general assembly.
I am confused as to why Britain should have a permanent member of the court anyway? The court has 15 members. Why is it that Britain should automatically be one of them continuously. As an example, Germany, Canada and Spain do not currently have seats. Nor do any of the Scandinavian countries. I don't see why there should be any assumption that certain countries should always have a seat.
There's always been a belief that the roots of Common Law coupled with the high competence of British judges, and impartiality therein was a great thing to have on the ICJ and would/does set a great example to others.
Compare and contrast the most contentious political case ruled upon by the American and UK highest appellate courts in recent years.
The legally sound Article 50 judgment versus the legally and morally dishonest judgment of Bush v Gore.
I do agree that the Article 50 judgement was a god example of justice at work but there are certainly areas where UK law does seem to be seriously deficient at times. The libel laws that for so long made Britain libel capital of the world and the way in which the Family Courts are run are both areas which I do not think reflect well on our judicial system.
I'm by no means an ardent Brexiteer, but the ECJ having powers over UK residents with no reciprocity of a UK court having the same over Brits in the EU would be an outrage. I think the government would lose the faith of many people who are still sympathetic to them if they did that.
They are still ending free movement and leaving the single market and ending ECJ jurisdiction in most other areas. Though it may lose a few Tories to UKIP it may win back a few Remainers as well
Any deal should be reciprocal. Anything that isn't makes the UK clearly subservient to the EU. And what is to stop the EU giving out citizenship to British nationals so they can enforce their jurisdiction more widely?
I'm on record as saying the UK should be willing to pay more cash so I'm not a hardliner here, but this is a bridge too far.
And yet, Labour will be still be seen among many as the ‘anti-Brexit’ party, while keeping a hold of Labour Leavers because of things like this. Hilarious.
I'm by no means an ardent Brexiteer, but the ECJ having powers over UK residents with no reciprocity of a UK court having the same over Brits in the EU would be an outrage. I think the government would lose the faith of many people who are still sympathetic to them if they did that.
They are still ending free movement and leaving the single market and ending ECJ jurisdiction in most other areas. Though it may lose a few Tories to UKIP it may win back a few Remainers as well
Any deal should be reciprocal. Anything that isn't makes the UK clearly subservient to the EU. And what is to stop the EU giving out citizenship to British nationals so they can enforce their jurisdiction more widely?
I'm on record as saying the UK should be willing to pay more cash so I'm not a hardliner here, but this is a bridge too far.
Comments
Not 'you' obviously.
The Remain campaign was rubbish and I felt ashamed and humilliated to be part of it. It was about the worst political campaign of my lifetime, only surpassed by strong and stable the following year.
See #22 - the Electoral Commission explicitly allowed us to do this.
There's a lot of interesting stuff in his blog about how we in Vote Leave won despite a massive money/power/resource disadvantage
We've obviously reached the Tyndall shed, fractious insults from now on I guess.
Thoroughly arrogant.
Though as with many things Thatcher reality was rather different to the myth.
In case you missed it I have posted throughout the day. If people make sensible comments, even if I don't agree with them then they get polite answers. If they behave like idiots they deserve all they get.
You can thank me later.
http://davetrott.co.uk/2016/03/i-only-want-to-play-if-i-win/
This is a very good read on how participating in the democratic process used to be more important than winning. It's a shame that both sides seem to have lost sight of that in recent years.
3m3 minutes ago
Can’t believe it. Labour - with some honourable exceptions - have just voted to effectively leave the EU customs union #Brexit
10,000 flights is simply rounding error at schipol or heathrow
2) It was worked for the Tories in 2015, framing it as Dave v Ed
But I was in a very small minority at the time who was warning Mrs May was a bit crap and a pound shop Gordon Brown.
or voted for it
They really thought she was an asset.
Amendment defeated ayes 76 noes 311
Having May herself talking about "my manifesto" rather than "our manifesto" looks very poor.
even when asked directly
For some reason, I felt it was relevant.
Look on the bright side, less overcrowding in London or need for a third runway.
And there was this kind of polling, showing Corbyn was electoral poison, with all voters, and in particular with older voters.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/21/fifty-shades-of-grey-voters-corbyns-punishing-polling-with-older-voters/
The key is slip the word 'maybe' in and you can get away with anything, that's what I do
since successive govts cant actually build an airport extension less pressure on Heathrow
The Conservative manifesto aggravated as many people as possible.
Project Fear was discredited.
The LibDems and UKIP looked ridiculous.
How did Starmer vote?
Compare and contrast the most contentious political case ruled upon by the American and UK highest appellate courts in recent years.
The legally sound Article 50 judgment versus the legally and morally dishonest judgment of Bush v Gore.
Unfortunately a PB type rather than a one off.
If you want to stay permanently in the single market and customs union your only option is the LDs, Greens or SNP.
Surprising that its a surprise to some. I still reckon he spoilt his Referendum vote by putting a cross against both.
https://twitter.com/UpIander/status/932685350278975488
France, Sweden and Italy were, according to leaks, behind Greenwood. Fat use this EU membership is.
I'm on record as saying the UK should be willing to pay more cash so I'm not a hardliner here, but this is a bridge too far.