This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
Labour don't want SM though do they? You think they will pivot even though it will rule out state aid?
Corbyn has said today he does want SM.
Edit I am not necessarily endorsing this, but I think this might be Labour's plan and I can see cleverness in it. It's quite likely to split the Conservatives.
He's on his second pint. Give him time to down the third one and he'll want something else.
Five and he'll be on the unicorns, oops, free student loans again
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
That's not true at all. A lot of countries have worked hard to hold their currencies at an above market level.
Really? There's China which does a bit of both. Anyone else? Or do you mean currencies that are pegged to the American dollar, which probably does mean they are overvalued?
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
"Western response" from an organisation which has multiple member countries way too cosy with the Kremlin, that's a good joke.
Mebbe Germany should meet its NATO defence spending commitments. Mind you, describing either France or the UK as 'major military' powers rings a tad hollow. We just have an expensive industrial welfare program.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Where do you get the idea that hard brexit was mandated by the referendum? That's been the whole problem - Leave did no define what Brexit was apart from providing extra cash for the NHS.
The campaign was undeniably focussed on ending free movement and wouldn't have won without it. Even the NHS angle was often just a way to talk about immigration.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
"Western response" from an organisation which has multiple member countries way too cosy with the Kremlin, that's a good joke.
Mebbe Germany should meet its NATO defence spending commitments. Mind you, describing either France or the UK as 'major military' powers rings a tad hollow. We just have an expensive industrial welfare program.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
Labour don't want SM though do they? You think they will pivot even though it will rule out state aid?
Corbyn has said today he does want SM.
Edit I am not necessarily endorsing this, but I think this might be Labour's plan and I can see cleverness in it. It's quite likely to split the Conservatives.
He's on his second pint. Give him time to down the third one and he'll want something else.
Five and he'll be on the unicorns, oops, free student loans again
I thought the scheme, if it is a scheme, uncharacteristically clever. Which makes me think the SM+CU in exchange for support on the WA wasn't Corbyn's idea. Maybe McDonnell's ?
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
Labour don't want SM though do they? You think they will pivot even though it will rule out state aid?
Corbyn has said today he does want SM.
Edit I am not necessarily endorsing this, but I think this might be Labour's plan and I can see cleverness in it. It's quite likely to split the Conservatives.
He's on his second pint. Give him time to down the third one and he'll want something else.
Five and he'll be on the unicorns, oops, free student loans again
I thought the scheme, if it is a scheme, uncharacteristically clever. Which makes me think the SM+CU in exchange for support on the WA wasn't Corbyn's idea. Maybe McDonnell's ?
But that hasn't been offered. Senior Labour spokespeople are consistently asking for a customs union that gives the UK a say. That's not going to be on offer, but it shows they are still sticking to the strategy of trying to bring down the government rather than prop them up.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
Labour don't want SM though do they? You think they will pivot even though it will rule out state aid?
Corbyn has said today he does want SM.
Edit I am not necessarily endorsing this, but I think this might be Labour's plan and I can see cleverness in it. It's quite likely to split the Conservatives.
He's on his second pint. Give him time to down the third one and he'll want something else.
Five and he'll be on the unicorns, oops, free student loans again
I thought the scheme, if it is a scheme, uncharacteristically clever. Which makes me think the SM+CU in exchange for support on the WA wasn't Corbyn's idea. Maybe McDonnell's ?
It's not whether his scheme is clever - his whole strategy all through has been both breathtakingly cynical and remarkably effective. But it has involved him making some changes at which a chameleon would blench.
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
I don't think that's true - Corbyn believes that the state knows best but I doubt very much that JRM does. Philosophically one has no doubt worried his bank manager since he opened an account, and the other hasn't.
If you had to give £1m of your own money to Corbyn or Mogg to manage on your behalf, who would you choose? I guess that most would choose JRM. However if you asked the same question about managing your country, I guess it would be closer. Why? Most people would agree that countries are more than just money. However the foundation of good government is sound money management. So JRM probably wins over Corbyn if it's head over heart. My tuppence anyway. And I don't have and never will have £1m btw.
I'd choose MacDonell over any prominent Tory. Good point on Corbyn though.
Well then you clearly (as you said) don't have £1m. McDonnell will steal your million and give you a smile from Diane Abbot in return. Corbyn is an aspirational failure - he thinks somehow things went wrong, McDonnell is a knowing failure - he wants to control for the sake of it.
I didn't mention my net worth. I thought this was a neat thought experiment that forced you to evaluate people's intrinsic ability divorced from their politics. I simply applied it to all the politicians I know well enough to have an impression of their competence. McDonnell came out top. It doesn't mean I agree with his politics or would vote for him. I don't share your mind reading ability so I can't argue about what you suggest goes on inside his head.
"Western response" from an organisation which has multiple member countries way too cosy with the Kremlin, that's a good joke.
Mebbe Germany should meet its NATO defence spending commitments. Mind you, describing either France or the UK as 'major military' powers rings a tad hollow. We just have an expensive industrial welfare program.
Johnson has a point. When a signatory to a joint agreement is falling over itself to encourage the other party to sign, it points to the deal being anything other than the best that could be negotiated.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
We don't know what would have happened. If Britain had signed up it would have been a different Euro.
For a start, it would have been a very short lived Euro, ending abruptly in 2008.
I don't think anybody has a good enough understanding of the way these things work to make as specific a prediction as that.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Where do you get the idea that hard brexit was mandated by the referendum? That's been the whole problem - Leave did no define what Brexit was apart from providing extra cash for the NHS.
Where do you get the idea you can block Brexit by arguing that it wasn't mandated by the Referendum?
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
We don't know what would have happened. If Britain had signed up it would have been a different Euro.
For a start, it would have been a very short lived Euro, ending abruptly in 2008.
I don't think anybody has a good enough understanding of the way these things work to make as specific a prediction as that.
It near as toucher broke over Anglo Irish. What do you think RBS would have done to it?
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
Labour don't want SM though do they? You think they will pivot even though it will rule out state aid?
Corbyn has said today he does want SM.
Edit I am not necessarily endorsing this, but I think this might be Labour's plan and I can see cleverness in it. It's quite likely to split the Conservatives.
He's on his second pint. Give him time to down the third one and he'll want something else.
Five and he'll be on the unicorns, oops, free student loans again
I thought the scheme, if it is a scheme, uncharacteristically clever. Which makes me think the SM+CU in exchange for support on the WA wasn't Corbyn's idea. Maybe McDonnell's ?
It's not whether his scheme is clever - his whole strategy all through has been both breathtakingly cynical and remarkably effective. But it has involved him making some changes at which a chameleon would blench.
Agree. And people will go on about how Corbyn is a different kind of politician.
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
It’s even more narrow than that
All it means is that the government exercises the Royal Prerogative (because of its position as Crown-in-Parliament).
Parliament’s authority is simply to (a) vote for or withhold supply (money); and (b) pass or reject legislation proposed by the executive, private members or private bills.
Even things like no confidence votes are not a right of parliament per se - they are simply the mechanism by which it is demonstrated that the government does not command the confidence of a majority of MPs and hence is no longer entitiesvto exercise the Royal Prerogative
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
"Western response" from an organisation which has multiple member countries way too cosy with the Kremlin, that's a good joke.
Mebbe Germany should meet its NATO defence spending commitments. Mind you, describing either France or the UK as 'major military' powers rings a tad hollow. We just have an expensive industrial welfare program.
Johnson has a point. When a signatory to a joint agreement is falling over itself to encourage the other party to sign, it points to the deal being anything other than the best that could be negotiated.
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
It’s even more narrow than that
All it means is that the government exercises the Royal Prerogative (because of its position as Crown-in-Parliament).
Parliament’s authority is simply to (a) vote for or withhold supply (money); and (b) pass or reject legislation proposed by the executive, private members or private bills.
Even things like no confidence votes are not a right of parliament per se - they are simply the mechanism by which it is demonstrated that the government does not command the confidence of a majority of MPs and hence is no longer entitiesvto exercise the Royal Prerogative
The paddle shift gearstick was fun, is where I expected the indicators to be.
My wife has that on her enormous orange subaru - they're actually attached to the steering wheel. It's incredibly shit, because the main time you want to manually downshift on an automatic is when you're going down a windy mountain road with the wheel turned for a bend, so when you want to use it it's hard to work out where the sodding thing is.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
Like Corbyn gives a flying one about stories fed to the Telegraph. If the tabloids pick it up and run with it... maybe.
Why on earth would he debate with her? What would be the point? It is her policy they are going to vote on not his. I suspect this will backfire on her and he will come off best in any debate as he will be critical without any need to offer a concreate alternative. I think PM May is desperate if she is willing to embrace this sort of humiliation on her self and by implication her office.
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
You don’t sound like a patronising twerp. You sound like a congenital idiot. You’re simply wrong.
Do explain
Anyone who has entered the twentieth century, never mind the twenty first, knows that the executive is the creature of Parliament, not the other way around. Following the enactment of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the matter is institutionalised. Governments stand or fall during Parliamentary terms at the discretion of Parliament.
The government owes its place to its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is answerable to it, as demonstrated weekly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliament allows the executive to exercise executive power to the extent it thinks fit. It gives the executive a wide degree of latitude, as you would expect as a matter of practicality, but it is entitled to and occasionally does intervene directly. The meaningful vote is a good example of that: it was not a concession of the executive but a requirement of the legislature. And the executive had to give way.
The conventionally understood idea of Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament has a supreme and unchallengeable ability to make and unmake laws - is the correct one.
Like Corbyn gives a flying one about stories fed to the Telegraph. If the tabloids pick it up and run with it... maybe.
Why on earth would he debate with her? What would be the point? It is her policy they are going to vote on not his. I suspect this will backfire on her and he will come off best in any debate as he will be critical without any need to offer a concreate alternative. I think PM May is desperate if she is willing to embrace this sort of humiliation on her self and by implication her office.
It’s also totally incoherent to appeal to the people while simultaneously arguing that the people shouldn’t have a say because that would be a “politicians’ vote”.
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
You don’t sound like a patronising twerp. You sound like a congenital idiot. You’re simply wrong.
Do explain
Anyone who has entered the twentieth century, never mind the twenty first, knows that the executive is the creature of Parliament, not the other way around. Following the enactment of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the matter is institutionalised. Governments stand or fall during Parliamentary terms at the discretion of Parliament.
The government owes its place to its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is answerable to it, as demonstrated weekly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliament allows the executive to exercise executive power to the extent it thinks fit. It gives the executive a wide degree of latitude, as you would expect as a matter of practicality, but it is entitled to and occasionally does intervene directly. The meaningful vote is a good example of that: it was not a concession of the executive but a requirement of the legislature. And the executive had to give way.
The conventionally understood idea of Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament has a supreme and unchallengeable ability to make and unmake laws - is the correct one.
The Ukrainians are moving machinery both towards and away from the east at the moment. With a meeting due about now we'll see whether they go down the line of martial law. It is being talked about as an option though it seems a pretty heavy response unless there is more going on than just the issues at sea.
Like Corbyn gives a flying one about stories fed to the Telegraph. If the tabloids pick it up and run with it... maybe.
Why on earth would he debate with her? What would be the point? It is her policy they are going to vote on not his. I suspect this will backfire on her and he will come off best in any debate as he will be critical without any need to offer a concreate alternative. I think PM May is desperate if she is willing to embrace this sort of humiliation on her self and by implication her office.
It’s also totally incoherent to appeal to the people while simultaneously arguing that the people shouldn’t have a say because that would be a “politicians’ vote”.
Indeed, I hope that point is made widely by MP's and the sections of the media that is not pro - Brexit.
Under those circumstances we would Leave for sure. Indeed the EU would be really, really dumb to put things in those terms and I genuinely don't believe they are that stupid.
Go on then. Its apparent that Crash Brexit would give our economy a heart attack. With all the consequences that brings economically politically and socially. Why would MPs allow us to leave and bring about their own demise?
BTW I agree that they absolutely should not up the ante in that way. But you can see how it could happen.
You would have thought after all this time you would have learnt that these scare stories simply have no traction anymore. That is irrespective of whether they are true or not. Remain cried wolf so many times and was caught out when the dire consequences failed to materialise that even the most reasonable doubts about crashing out are considered to be worthless by a very large proportion of the population.
And MPs do not get to make these decisions for us when most of them are Remainers anyway. If they did so without reference to the population then they really would bring about their own demise.
Much as I detest them they are in an impossible position if they do believe the hype. If they prevent us leaving then they would have no evidence that leaving would have been bad so they get slaughtered at the next election or worse they facilitate the rise of the extremists. And yet they believe their own propaganda about how bad Brexit is.
Why is he going to agree to that when she refused to do GE ones?
More to the point I don't see what's in a debate for May. She needs to get the deal over the line, which probably means some kind of accommodation with Labour. It's the only thing she needs to do right now.
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
You don’t sound like a patronising twerp. You sound like a congenital idiot. You’re simply wrong.
Do explain
Anyone who has entered the twentieth century, never mind the twenty first, knows that the executive is the creature of Parliament, not the other way around. Following the enactment of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the matter is institutionalised. Governments stand or fall during Parliamentary terms at the discretion of Parliament.
The government owes its place to its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is answerable to it, as demonstrated weekly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliament allows the executive to exercise executive power to the extent it thinks fit. It gives the executive a wide degree of latitude, as you would expect as a matter of practicality, but it is entitled to and occasionally does intervene directly. The meaningful vote is a good example of that: it was not a concession of the executive but a requirement of the legislature. And the executive had to give way.
The conventionally understood idea of Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament has a supreme and unchallengeable ability to make and unmake laws - is the correct one.
Essentially, because serving a notice under article 50 contradicted previous laws of Parliament, specifically the European Communities Act, it required primary legislation approved by Parliament before the government could serve the notice.
All he needs to say, I welcome the change, I am very happy to debate May, just call the election and I will be there.
Indeed, it is a completely absurd request as the 2017 was supposed to be about Brexit and she failed to turn up to debates about it. I do wonder if this move by her will trigger further doubt among Tory MPs about her fitness for the job. It might precipitate enough letters for a VONC! She is hopeless at strategy or badly advised IMO. She tries to appeal directly to the people but denies them a peoples vote - what a joke!
The biggest mistake that Leavers have made was to focus on the customs union and not breaking free from the EU political system. They upset business needlessly with no clear perceived gain. I too envisaged a EFTA/EEA solution as the best route forward and looking back it probably was.
I cant see TM getting enough support to pass her plan and like most people here I just don't see the country being able to bring enough enthusiasm from key workers to execute a hard Brexit. Thus we are left with no Brexit.
e,g, One big loser from a hard Brexit would be lorry drivers who would waste hours in new queues even in the best scenario. As our last fuel strike showed they can close down the country in less than a week. The yellow jackets in France are a sign of key workers flexing their muscles against weakened governments. We should not think this is just the French being French.
Perhaps because under EU treaties you can only be in the Customs Union if you are part of the EU political institutions. Unlike the Single Market there is membership available to outside the EU. So for example during the transition period we will have no say in any trade deals negotiated by the EU which effect the Single Market. We are staying in there as a means to sort out the Irish Border (or rather as an excuse for something that didn't need sorting) but it is not a sustainable long term situation for either the UK or the EU.
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
Anyone who has entered the twentieth century, never mind the twenty first, knows that the executive is the creature of Parliament, not the other way around. Following the enactment of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the matter is institutionalised. Governments stand or fall during Parliamentary terms at the discretion of Parliament.
The government owes its place to its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is answerable to it, as demonstrated weekly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliament allows the executive to exercise executive power to the extent it thinks fit. It gives the executive a wide degree of latitude, as you would expect as a matter of practicality, but it is entitled to and occasionally does intervene directly. The meaningful vote is a good example of that: it was not a concession of the executive but a requirement of the legislature. And the executive had to give way.
The conventionally understood idea of Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament has a supreme and unchallengeable ability to make and unmake laws - is the correct one.
I think Charles's interpretation is actually the correct one. Unfortunately, your interpretation is the one that is commonly held by the media and everyday people.
Like Corbyn gives a flying one about stories fed to the Telegraph. If the tabloids pick it up and run with it... maybe.
Why on earth would he debate with her? What would be the point? It is her policy they are going to vote on not his. I suspect this will backfire on her and he will come off best in any debate as he will be critical without any need to offer a concreate alternative. I think PM May is desperate if she is willing to embrace this sort of humiliation on her self and by implication her office.
It’s also totally incoherent to appeal to the people while simultaneously arguing that the people shouldn’t have a say because that would be a “politicians’ vote”.
And the suggestion that MPs will be forced to vote again on the deal if it rejected the first time rather undermines the idea that having a second public vote is a negation of democracy.
So .. has anyone dissected the May Letter to let us remainers understand why its full of lies.. Naah thought not.. its just a case of Little Englander/zenophobic mentality.
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
Sorry Mortimer but this is rubbish. Except on matters of Royal Prerogative the legislature has authority over the executive under Parliamentary Sovereignty. I believe there were a series of minor scuffles in the 1640s and 50s to make this point. The executive is subject to Parliament - the legislature.
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
Anyone who has entered the twentieth century, never mind the twenty first, knows that the executive is the creature of Parliament, not the other way around. Following the enactment of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the matter is institutionalised. Governments stand or fall during Parliamentary terms at the discretion of Parliament.
The government owes its place to its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is answerable to it, as demonstrated weekly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliament allows the executive to exercise executive power to the extent it thinks fit. It gives the executive a wide degree of latitude, as you would expect as a matter of practicality, but it is entitled to and occasionally does intervene directly. The meaningful vote is a good example of that: it was not a concession of the executive but a requirement of the legislature. And the executive had to give way.
The conventionally understood idea of Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament has a supreme and unchallengeable ability to make and unmake laws - is the correct one.
I think Charles's interpretation is actually the correct one. Unfortunately, your interpretation is the one that is commonly held by the media and everyday people.
‘Mortimer’, ‘Charles’ and ‘Viewcode’ can sleep soundly tonight knowing that everything anyone knows is wrong. And they are right.
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
Anyone who has entered the twentieth century, never mind the twenty first, knows that the executive is the creature of Parliament, not the other way around. Following the enactment of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the matter is institutionalised. Governments stand or fall during Parliamentary terms at the discretion of Parliament.
The government owes its place to its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is answerable to it, as demonstrated weekly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliament allows the executive to exercise executive power to the extent it thinks fit. It gives the executive a wide degree of latitude, as you would expect as a matter of practicality, but it is entitled to and occasionally does intervene directly. The meaningful vote is a good example of that: it was not a concession of the executive but a requirement of the legislature. And the executive had to give way.
The conventionally understood idea of Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament has a supreme and unchallengeable ability to make and unmake laws - is the correct one.
I think Charles's interpretation is actually the correct one. Unfortunately, your interpretation is the one that is commonly held by the media and everyday people.
‘Mortimer’, ‘Charles’ and ‘Viewcode’ can sleep soundly tonight knowing that everything anyone knows is wrong. And they are right.
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
Anyone who has entered the twentieth century, never mind the twenty first, knows that the executive is the creature of Parliament, not the other way around. Following the enactment of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the matter is institutionalised. Governments stand or fall during Parliamentary terms at the discretion of Parliament.
The government owes its place to its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is answerable to it, as demonstrated weekly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliament allows the executive to exercise executive power to the extent it thinks fit. It gives the executive a wide degree of latitude, as you would expect as a matter of practicality, but it is entitled to and occasionally does intervene directly. The meaningful vote is a good example of that: it was not a concession of the executive but a requirement of the legislature. And the executive had to give way.
The conventionally understood idea of Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament has a supreme and unchallengeable ability to make and unmake laws - is the correct one.
I think Charles's interpretation is actually the correct one. Unfortunately, your interpretation is the one that is commonly held by the media and everyday people.
Alastair's position is also the one held by constitutional theorists. And of course by practice given that no executive can survive a vote of no confidence by Parliament. If they lose the support of the House then they cannot simply continue as if nothing had changed.
The Conservatives leading us to no deal and the bad things that would cause would encourage Labour voters rather than put them off.
This firstly assumes no deal - if no deal happens and is half as bad as the warnings I genuinely think all bets are off. Turmoil on that scale would likely sweep away both party leaders, if not the parties themselves. It would be a failure so great that I don't think Corbyn-Labour could escape it - he'd be Lansbury to May's Chamberlain. Especially given the repeated warnings he and his team have had to come up with something to stop disaster - and happily sat by and watched.
Which brings me as to why the Lib Dem comparison does work in still the most likely scenario - the Tories get a deal through that no one's that happy with and is ultimately harmful as any Brexit will be but it stops carnage and gets us out. Your point would be true if the Conservatives had a rebellion proof majority - Labour could do nothing that wasn't rhetorical. They'd own it - and Labour could make hay saying as they are now, we'd have done it better, even if that is untrue. But they don't. There's probably a majority in the HoC for something like EEA/EFTA now and likely going to be one for a People's Vote if Maty's deal is voted down next month. Corbyn would be the man who'd failed his voters when he could have acted, but chose not to, either through expediency or due to ideology.
Either way, if Theresa May and Cameron are the parents of Brexit, he'd be its midwife.
But he would be voting against the deal not for it, like the Lib Dems voted against Iraq. Your point only works if he is voting for the deal but that seems an unlikely hypothetical...
Labour voters aren't going to decide not to vote for Labour because Labour voted against a policy they didn't like brought in by the Conservative government. The opposite is actually what usually happens.
To give an example whilst I am not enthusiastic about the Democrats in America I would be more likely to vote Democrat currently if I was American precisely because Trump and the Republicans are doing bad things. I would actually be less likely to vote Democrat when that wasn't the case. Following your logic though surely I would be less likely to vote Democrat because I disagree with the things the Republicans are doing?
Comments
Five and he'll be on the unicorns, oops, free student loans again
The Crown-in-parliament is sovereign, i.e. appointed officials of the Government.
For fear of sounding like a patronising twerp, to spell that out, it means the executive, rather than the legislature, is sovereign.
(Well, unless we hand over powers to another body, like the EU - and the Crown-in-parliament is not sovereign).
https://twitter.com/mounir/status/1066305291975892993
Edit: just checked and the answer is no, men and women were about the same level.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/25/governments-cant-do-attitude-brexit-has-got-us-mess-way/
All it means is that the government exercises the Royal Prerogative (because of its position as Crown-in-Parliament).
Parliament’s authority is simply to (a) vote for or withhold supply (money); and (b) pass or reject legislation proposed by the executive, private members or private bills.
Even things like no confidence votes are not a right of parliament per se - they are simply the mechanism by which it is demonstrated that the government does not command the confidence of a majority of MPs and hence is no longer entitiesvto exercise the Royal Prerogative
Sounds OK but I'd love to see a threesome with Tezza, Jezza and.... Nigel Farage!
Who one day got stuck in his garage
He campaigned so hard
But let down his guard
And fell to an electoral barrage
The government owes its place to its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is answerable to it, as demonstrated weekly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliament allows the executive to exercise executive power to the extent it thinks fit. It gives the executive a wide degree of latitude, as you would expect as a matter of practicality, but it is entitled to and occasionally does intervene directly. The meaningful vote is a good example of that: it was not a concession of the executive but a requirement of the legislature. And the executive had to give way.
The conventionally understood idea of Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament has a supreme and unchallengeable ability to make and unmake laws - is the correct one.
The Ukrainians are moving machinery both towards and away from the east at the moment. With a meeting due about now we'll see whether they go down the line of martial law. It is being talked about as an option though it seems a pretty heavy response unless there is more going on than just the issues at sea.
And MPs do not get to make these decisions for us when most of them are Remainers anyway. If they did so without reference to the population then they really would bring about their own demise.
Much as I detest them they are in an impossible position if they do believe the hype. If they prevent us leaving then they would have no evidence that leaving would have been bad so they get slaughtered at the next election or worse they facilitate the rise of the extremists. And yet they believe their own propaganda about how bad Brexit is.
I will rather enjoy their pain.
Essentially, because serving a notice under article 50 contradicted previous laws of Parliament, specifically the European Communities Act, it required primary legislation approved by Parliament before the government could serve the notice.
Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.
Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
Labour voters aren't going to decide not to vote for Labour because Labour voted against a policy they didn't like brought in by the Conservative government. The opposite is actually what usually happens.
To give an example whilst I am not enthusiastic about the Democrats in America I would be more likely to vote Democrat currently if I was American precisely because Trump and the Republicans are doing bad things. I would actually be less likely to vote Democrat when that wasn't the case. Following your logic though surely I would be less likely to vote Democrat because I disagree with the things the Republicans are doing?