Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Geoffrey Cox for next CON leader? He’s head and shoulders abov

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 4 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Geoffrey Cox for next CON leader? He’s head and shoulders above the rest

These are quite extraordinary times and one of the “stars” to have emerged has been the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox – someone who first came to many people’s attention when he introduced TMay at October’s CON conference.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,599
    First... PM to have been found in contempt of Parliament?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,634
    Where the hell did my comment go??

    Try again.

    These days being able to string a few coherent sentences together without making your audience fall asleep makes you a "star".

    In the land of the blind etc......
  • When I saw his performance at the Conference, I thought he had potential within a strictly legalistic context, which Brexit is, and will be going forward. It suits his skills. Dunno about the human stuff that you need. Mind you neither Brown nor May possessed that
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,281
    Has he ever been mentioned at all?

    As I've said many times passim, I reckon the next Conservative leader will be one of the ones who is little-known to the public, and certainty not someone who has openly coveted the job.

    Cox would certainly fit that bill.

    As others may be as clueless about him as I am, here's his wiki page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Cox_(British_politician)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,598
    edited December 4
    Cox is certainly an excellent speaker with a Rolls Royce brain and more than a match for Corbyn.

    The Advocate Generals ruling also clearly boosts Remainers and the chance of EUref2 and no Brexit at all if Parliament rejects the Deal May has negotiated
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    edited December 4
    Geoffrey Cox has a good voice. That's literally his defining feature at the moment. We know almost nothing else about him. Of course, the fact that his voice was speaking a load of old bollocks has fooled nobody.

    Imagine being one the finest legal minds in the country and having your fate in the hands of Andrea Leadsom.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    Lock her up!
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    Also, consider: at some point in the near future, Cox will be forced to release his legal advice and it will become VERY OBVIOUS that he has lied to Parliament.

    A contempt charge and lying to Parliament are not auspicious blots on your record when looking to become PM.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    It was striking yesterday how often Geoffrey Cox invoked his personal opinion rather than his legal opinion - he used word 'believe' over 20 times. He was articulating a faith-based position - he believes in the deal, he believes release of advice is in public interest.

    This is what is particularly winding up MPs on all sides of the House.

    As much as they like and respect Geoffrey Cox, they don't care about his personal, political opinion half as much as what he *actually said* in his legal advice as AG.



  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,281

    Also, consider: at some point in the near future, Cox will be forced to release his legal advice and it will become VERY OBVIOUS that he has lied to Parliament.

    (Snip)

    WILL IT ?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243

    Also, consider: at some point in the near future, Cox will be forced to release his legal advice and it will become VERY OBVIOUS that he has lied to Parliament.

    (Snip)

    WILL IT ?
    MAYBE?!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,830
    But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 249
    He certainly has a lot more 'game' than one expects from an AG.

    Michael Gove for me though. Not saying that he will be, he's badly handicapped by being Michael Gove, just that he should be.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,657

    Also, consider: at some point in the near future, Cox will be forced to release his legal advice and it will become VERY OBVIOUS that he has lied to Parliament.

    (Snip)

    WILL IT ?
    MAYBE?!
    DEFINITLY MAYBE?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,695

    But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

    He supports Brexit, and did so at the time of the Referendum.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    Sean_F said:

    But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

    He supports Brexit, and did so at the time of the Referendum.
    We don't know what his opinions are now, because if we were to find out Andrea Leadsom says soldiers will die and Russia will invade.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    Leadsom says the government have complied with the motion. It can't have been too "vague" then!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,695

    How many MPs would take the trouble to read the full legal advice if they had it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,598
    edited December 4

    But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

    If May's Deal goes down she will likely take every Cabinet member with her, including Cox.

    Tory members will demand a Canada+ or No Deal Brexit true believer like Boris or Davis.

    Cox's best chance is probably if the Deal succeeds
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Notch said:

    Leadsom says the government have complied with the motion. It can't have been too "vague" then!

    Well, if Andrea says so, case closed. Only the terminally discourteous would enquire further.

    Pub?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Mr contempt?

    Arguing a weak case quite well might mean he has substance but who knows really.

    But I think the Tories need to take a gamble rather than the same old same old.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Nigel Dodds on R5L says "unlikely" DUP will support VONC in govt if MV fails.

    The DUP are going to keep May's hands glued to the wheel so long as she is hurtling toward the cliff edge
    So the DUP will abstain, leaving May with a majority of 1 in the house.

    Unless Sinn Fein can be cajoled into taking their seats :)
    DUP did not comment on abstaining as far as I am aware

    If the deal falls they will support HMG
    Fair point- they said they will reconsider C&S only if the dodgy deal passes.
    Indeed.

    Listening to Sky the narrative is changing minute by minute with an amendment signed by 16 conservative mps seemingly to prevent no deal. It does look as if the sane conservatives including Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd are making moves to recapture the party from ERG

    There is so much going on but my instinct tells me we have seen peak ERG and TM deal becomes the deal or we do actually remain

    Everything the media are reporting does look like the mps are acting across party to protect the country from the worst excess of brexit
    Looks like they are marshalling for remain. It's the only thing that gets enough cooperating.

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    It was striking yesterday how often Geoffrey Cox invoked his personal opinion rather than his legal opinion - he used word 'believe' over 20 times. He was articulating a faith-based position - he believes in the deal, he believes release of advice is in public interest.

    This is what is particularly winding up MPs on all sides of the House.

    As much as they like and respect Geoffrey Cox, they don't care about his personal, political opinion half as much as what he *actually said* in his legal advice as AG.



    I believe it's a common tactic when one believes one's interlocutor(s) are too stupid to understand technical advice.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,998

    Has he ever been mentioned at all?

    As I've said many times passim, I reckon the next Conservative leader will be one of the ones who is little-known to the public, and certainty not someone who has openly coveted the job.

    Cox would certainly fit that bill.

    As others may be as clueless about him as I am, here's his wiki page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Cox_(British_politician)

    You are fond of using this quasi-intellectual Latin.

    Yet it does you no favours.

    Passim is almost always redundant in this context.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,998
    We'd all need earplugs if Geoff Foghorn becomes leader.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    Sean_F said:


    How many MPs would take the trouble to read the full legal advice if they had it?

    I mean it's only six pages.

    Maybe 10%?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 16,122
    Sean_F said:


    How many MPs would take the trouble to read the full legal advice if they had it?

    How many of them have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement? We know for example that Corbyn couldn't be bothered.
  • Never underestimate a Cambridge educated lawyer with a flair for words.

    Ahem.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,062
    Sean_F said:


    How many MPs would take the trouble to read the full legal advice if they had it?

    At least half would just look for a twitter summary done by whoever got the most likes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Anazina said:

    We'd all need earplugs if Geoff Foghorn becomes leader.

    eh, I'm a sucker for an authoritative booming. Corbyn actually has a pretty decent voice too.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    Also, consider: at some point in the near future, Cox will be forced to release his legal advice and it will become VERY OBVIOUS that he has lied to Parliament.

    A contempt charge and lying to Parliament are not auspicious blots on your record when looking to become PM.

    How do you know he has lied if you haven't seen the advice?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    kle4 said:

    Also, consider: at some point in the near future, Cox will be forced to release his legal advice and it will become VERY OBVIOUS that he has lied to Parliament.

    A contempt charge and lying to Parliament are not auspicious blots on your record when looking to become PM.

    How do you know he has lied if you haven't seen the advice?
    Let us call it a hunch.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Notch said:

    Leadsom says the government have complied with the motion. It can't have been too "vague" then!

    I don't follow. The more vague it might be the easier it is to comply with, or argue you complied at any rate, it doesn't prevent compliance.

    To be clear it looks like contempt to me and I don't think there's any evidence yet that Cox is good or terrible.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,120
    He sounds like a Brian Blessed knock-off delivering lines that Digby Jones rejected for his tweets as too mindlessly banal.

    50/1 is no doubt a great price, given the state of mind of the current Conservative party.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    Today in Parliament:

    12:30-7pm: Contempt motion
    7pm-8:45pm: Grieve procedural motion
    8:45pm-4:45am: The *first day* of debate on the meaningful vote.

    BREXIT HAS MADE EVERYONE STUPID.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,699

    kle4 said:

    Also, consider: at some point in the near future, Cox will be forced to release his legal advice and it will become VERY OBVIOUS that he has lied to Parliament.

    A contempt charge and lying to Parliament are not auspicious blots on your record when looking to become PM.

    How do you know he has lied if you haven't seen the advice?
    Let us call it a hunch.
    Surely the simplest explanation is that the original advice was overly brief and potentially inaccurate because of it? That the government would simply be embarrassed to say the Cabinet agreed based on shoddy advice?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,281

    He sounds like a Brian Blessed knock-off delivering lines that Digby Jones rejected for his tweets as too mindlessly banal.

    50/1 is no doubt a great price, given the state of mind of the current Conservative party.

    I hate to break it to you, but that's how all lawyers sound to us normals. ;)
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    kle4 said:

    Notch said:

    Leadsom says the government have complied with the motion. It can't have been too "vague" then!

    I don't follow. The more vague it might be the easier it is to comply with, or argue you complied at any rate, it doesn't prevent compliance.

    To be clear it looks like contempt to me and I don't think there's any evidence yet that Cox is good or terrible.
    Vague would mean those who had to comply with it didn't know what it covered. When Cox called it vague he didn't use that as support for the contention that they had complied.

    It's wrong that so much attention is focused on the writer of the advice.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 16,122

    Never underestimate a Cambridge educated lawyer with a flair for words.

    Ahem.

    Took my daughter to her interviews at Trinity yesterday. Not been there before and have to say looking round the college it was... big!
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 844
    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.
  • Can parliament offer immunity to anyone who leaks the legal advice?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,032
    Anazina said:

    Has he ever been mentioned at all?

    As I've said many times passim, I reckon the next Conservative leader will be one of the ones who is little-known to the public, and certainty not someone who has openly coveted the job.

    Cox would certainly fit that bill.

    As others may be as clueless about him as I am, here's his wiki page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Cox_(British_politician)

    You are fond of using this quasi-intellectual Latin.

    Yet it does you no favours.

    Passim is almost always redundant in this context.
    Why are you obsessed with the posting style of other posters? Its not as if there isn't lots of actual politics going on at the moment.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,032

    Never underestimate a Cambridge educated lawyer with a flair for words.

    Ahem.

    Took my daughter to her interviews at Trinity yesterday. Not been there before and have to say looking round the college it was... big!
    Best of luck to her!
  • Never underestimate a Cambridge educated lawyer with a flair for words.

    Ahem.

    Took my daughter to her interviews at Trinity yesterday. Not been there before and have to say looking round the college it was... big!
    Hope it went well for your daughter.

    I have everything crossed for her.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,697
    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,982

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    There is a wondering dynamic when you have a highly polished booming Tory being taken apart by a smarter (often Welsh) Labour opposite number. Delightful to watch.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 16,122

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

    There is a factual error in the opening statement.

    He says "As the United Kingdom Parliament has to give its final approval, both if a withdrawal agreement is reached and in the absence of that agreement, several members of that parliament consider that if the notice of the intention to withdraw were revocable, this would open a third way, namely remaining in the European Union in the face of an unsatisfactory Brexit."

    It is not the case that the UK Parliament has to give its final approval in the absence of an agreement. It is entirely possible, even if many view it as undesirable, that the UK could leave with no further involvement of Parliament at all.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    Today in Parliament:

    12:30-7pm: Contempt motion
    7pm-8:45pm: Grieve procedural motion
    8:45pm-4:45am: The *first day* of debate on the meaningful vote.

    BREXIT HAS MADE EVERYONE STUPID.

    No we were already stupid this has just revealed it.
  • I hate people who don’t immunise their kids. Surely we should make it a crime?

    More than 500 children in London have had emergency measles vaccinations to stop an outbreak of the disease among strictly orthodox Jews.

    More than 60 cases have been reported since the beginning of October. The patients had not been immunised and most were Haredi Jews from Hackney and Haringey.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israeli-measles-epidemic-hits-uk-3wmcngcw6
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,697
    Jonathan said:

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    There is a wondering dynamic when you have a highly polished booming Tory being taken apart by a smarter (often Welsh) Labour opposite number. Delightful to watch.
    I had that feeling when Caroline Lucas popped up in the debate yesterday. It was like a magic spell being broken and reality finally returning.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 874
    So is this in addition to the Grieve procedural motion?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 15,721
    edited December 4

    I hate people who don’t immunise their kids. Surely we should make it a crime?

    More than 500 children in London have had emergency measles vaccinations to stop an outbreak of the disease among strictly orthodox Jews.

    More than 60 cases have been reported since the beginning of October. The patients had not been immunised and most were Haredi Jews from Hackney and Haringey.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israeli-measles-epidemic-hits-uk-3wmcngcw6

    There you go - these are the non-integrated neighbourhood-changing, culture-warping immigrants that the Leavers say it is ok not to like.

    Edit: hmm - they are white, however, which gives them back 20pts.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    Today in Parliament:

    12:30-7pm: Contempt motion
    7pm-8:45pm: Grieve procedural motion
    8:45pm-4:45am: The *first day* of debate on the meaningful vote.

    BREXIT HAS MADE EVERYONE STUPID.

    We were always stupid, this has just revealed it.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 422
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Nigel Dodds on R5L says "unlikely" DUP will support VONC in govt if MV fails.

    The DUP are going to keep May's hands glued to the wheel so long as she is hurtling toward the cliff edge
    So the DUP will abstain, leaving May with a majority of 1 in the house.

    Unless Sinn Fein can be cajoled into taking their seats :)
    DUP did not comment on abstaining as far as I am aware

    If the deal falls they will support HMG
    Fair point- they said they will reconsider C&S only if the dodgy deal passes.
    Indeed.

    Listening to Sky the narrative is changing minute by minute with an amendment signed by 16 conservative mps seemingly to prevent no deal. It does look as if the sane conservatives including Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd are making moves to recapture the party from ERG

    There is so much going on but my instinct tells me we have seen peak ERG and TM deal becomes the deal or we do actually remain

    Everything the media are reporting does look like the mps are acting across party to protect the country from the worst excess of brexit
    Looks like they are marshalling for remain. It's the only thing that gets enough cooperating.

    If they engineer it so we remain they will be cursed and vilified by their own party. And praised and lauded by future generations.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 18,088

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    In a sense it doesn't matter whether he is any good. The bet is 50/1 (now at around 34). If there is any further interest in Cox and he becomes a runner, then the odds will drop and we can all lay it off.

  • kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    We'd all need earplugs if Geoff Foghorn becomes leader.

    eh, I'm a sucker for an authoritative booming. Corbyn actually has a pretty decent voice too.

    Corbyn has a decent voice? You are kidding me? His weaselly voice is about as commanding as his appearance. I don't know Cox at all, but having just looked up his background I think he most likely would show Corbyn up at the despatch box for the pathetic lightweight that he is. I don't want to see a Brexit enthusiast for PM, but it would be a far better option than Worzel Gummidge. Bring on Brian Blessed!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,414

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    Well, Keir Starmer was quoting Jacob Rees-Mogg earlier today, did you cringe at that too?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    He's a successful barrister so he's clearly not a buffoon. His political skill particularly at senior levels is, however, unknown.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,699

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

    There is a factual error in the opening statement.

    He says "As the United Kingdom Parliament has to give its final approval, both if a withdrawal agreement is reached and in the absence of that agreement, several members of that parliament consider that if the notice of the intention to withdraw were revocable, this would open a third way, namely remaining in the European Union in the face of an unsatisfactory Brexit."

    It is not the case that the UK Parliament has to give its final approval in the absence of an agreement. It is entirely possible, even if many view it as undesirable, that the UK could leave with no further involvement of Parliament at all.
    It is certainly a rare foray into national legislative procedures for the Court.

    Fortunately for the A-G, I do not think it is necessary to support the conclusion on admissibility.

    The situation is very different from the manufactured disputes which form the backbone of CJEU jurisprudence in this area.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    170. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should answer the question referred by the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scotland) as follows:

    When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows the unilateral revocation of that notification, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.

    That's about has hard a loss for the government as it gets.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 422

    But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

    No idea who the next Tory leader will be, but I do know that the next one to win a General election hasn't been born yet.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    We'd all need earplugs if Geoff Foghorn becomes leader.

    eh, I'm a sucker for an authoritative booming. Corbyn actually has a pretty decent voice too.

    Corbyn has a decent voice? You are kidding me? His weaselly voice is about as commanding as his appearance. I don't know Cox at all, but having just looked up his background I think he most likely would show Corbyn up at the despatch box for the pathetic lightweight that he is. I don't want to see a Brexit enthusiast for PM, but it would be a far better option than Worzel Gummidge. Bring on Brian Blessed!
    I think his voice is decent yes. And I cannot call it weaselly compared to his predecessor (no slur on ed m, I've been told I look and sound not unlike a less handsome ed m)
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,699

    170. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should answer the question referred by the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scotland) as follows:

    When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows the unilateral revocation of that notification, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.

    That's about has hard a loss for the government as it gets.

    I do no think that can be the case given the UK made no substantive submissions at all.

    The question itself was People's vote v the EU, and the People's vote won over the A-G.

    I do not think it is, as an opinion, so well crafted as to make the actual decision null though.
  • timmo said:

    So is this in addition to the Grieve procedural motion?

    If taking back control means anything it means the absolute sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament. The government only serves with the support of said parliament and absolutely has to follow it's express wishes. Which is why the whole contempt thing is so baffling.

    Perhaps MaysMplan is to take the meaningless vote. Lose the vote. And announce that it has been carried.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243

    I hate people who don’t immunise their kids. Surely we should make it a crime?

    More than 500 children in London have had emergency measles vaccinations to stop an outbreak of the disease among strictly orthodox Jews.

    More than 60 cases have been reported since the beginning of October. The patients had not been immunised and most were Haredi Jews from Hackney and Haringey.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israeli-measles-epidemic-hits-uk-3wmcngcw6

    I thought we'd decided that we allowed a religious exemption for child abuse?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,697

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    In a sense it doesn't matter whether he is any good. The bet is 50/1 (now at around 34). If there is any further interest in Cox and he becomes a runner, then the odds will drop and we can all lay it off.

    Now that sounds like very good advice.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 16,122

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

    Article 153 is very interesting.

    "the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union."

    Combined with article 155

    "Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first."

    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,806

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.



    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
    So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.
  • timmo said:

    So is this in addition to the Grieve procedural motion?

    The grown ups are "taking back control". Hopefully the checks and balances of our system of government will begin to bring back some sense of reality after such a long period of madness
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973
    FPT:

    May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.

    It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
    I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
    She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
    Someone already pointed out a couple of weeks ago when this word cloud was put up that it is a fake.


    It was me. This word cloud is definitely a fake.

    Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

    Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

    If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 16,122

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

    There is a factual error in the opening statement.

    He says "As the United Kingdom Parliament has to give its final approval, both if a withdrawal agreement is reached and in the absence of that agreement, several members of that parliament consider that if the notice of the intention to withdraw were revocable, this would open a third way, namely remaining in the European Union in the face of an unsatisfactory Brexit."

    It is not the case that the UK Parliament has to give its final approval in the absence of an agreement. It is entirely possible, even if many view it as undesirable, that the UK could leave with no further involvement of Parliament at all.
    It is certainly a rare foray into national legislative procedures for the Court.

    Fortunately for the A-G, I do not think it is necessary to support the conclusion on admissibility.

    The situation is very different from the manufactured disputes which form the backbone of CJEU jurisprudence in this area.
    No I agree. I was just surprised to see such a basic error in a judgement from such a senior official.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    In a sense it doesn't matter whether he is any good. The bet is 50/1 (now at around 34). If there is any further interest in Cox and he becomes a runner, then the odds will drop and we can all lay it off.

    Perhaps it would be useful to know if he had any ambition to run.

    I can't see it myself.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,806

    I hate people who don’t immunise their kids. Surely we should make it a crime?

    More than 500 children in London have had emergency measles vaccinations to stop an outbreak of the disease among strictly orthodox Jews.

    More than 60 cases have been reported since the beginning of October. The patients had not been immunised and most were Haredi Jews from Hackney and Haringey.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israeli-measles-epidemic-hits-uk-3wmcngcw6

    They should allow head teachers to ban any pupils not immunised from schools.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243

    170. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should answer the question referred by the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scotland) as follows:

    When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows the unilateral revocation of that notification, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.

    That's about has hard a loss for the government as it gets.

    I do no think that can be the case given the UK made no substantive submissions at all.

    The question itself was People's vote v the EU, and the People's vote won over the A-G.

    I do not think it is, as an opinion, so well crafted as to make the actual decision null though.
    The government made no substantive arguments, because that would have undermined its foolish argument that the question was moot since the government had no plans to revoke article 50.

    Since there was actually an incredibly important question of international constitutional law at stake here, this bone-headed position effectively denuded the government of the opportunity to make any substantial representations on the question at hand.

    Dolts.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,697
    kle4 said:

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    He's a successful barrister so he's clearly not a buffoon. His political skill particularly at senior levels is, however, unknown.
    I never said he was a buffoon. He may well be just the man the country needs and I'll support him if that is how it turns out. I am just pointing out that his persona doesn't inspire me with confidence.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,699
    TGOHF said:

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.



    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
    So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.
    It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

    It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    FPT:

    May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.

    It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
    I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
    She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
    Someone already pointed out a couple of weeks ago when this word cloud was put up that it is a fake.


    It was me. This word cloud is definitely a fake.

    Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

    Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

    If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.
    yes indeed. If it is illustrative of a true point it can still be fake. Which makes it worse if the point is true, since why mock something up.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,504
    Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,938
    I think the last Attorney General to become PM was Spencer Perceval - and he ended up being shot.

    That said, I think it's a good tip from Mike. The cabinet is not overflowing with talent and Cox is not readily identified with any faction, which is always an advantage - and would be a *huge* advantage were a consensus leader needed in extreme circumstances, such as the government having just lost a VoNC.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243

    TGOHF said:

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.



    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
    So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.
    It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

    It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

    The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

    ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    kle4 said:

    I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

    He's a successful barrister so he's clearly not a buffoon. His political skill particularly at senior levels is, however, unknown.
    I never said he was a buffoon. He may well be just the man the country needs and I'll support him if that is how it turns out. I am just pointing out that his persona doesn't inspire me with confidence.
    I never said you thought he was a buffoon. You noted many people with similar characteristics are generally buffoons. I was merely assuaging that fear with Cox, Though he may be politically clueless for all I know.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,675
    edited December 4

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

    Article 153 is very interesting.

    "the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union."

    Combined with article 155

    "Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first."

    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
    You get one free revocation - seems fair.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,414

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

    Article 153 is very interesting.

    "the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union."

    Combined with article 155

    "Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first."

    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
    No, he's saying it could be an abusive practice, not that it would be. Presumably, if it were, the ECJ could impose sanctions under EU law, such as fines or restricting voting rights, and perhaps by declaring any subsequent revocation notice as invalid.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

    What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,414

    FPT:

    May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.

    It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
    I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
    She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
    Someone already pointed out a couple of weeks ago when this word cloud was put up that it is a fake.


    It was me. This word cloud is definitely a fake.

    Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

    Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

    If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.
    Surely it would be more likely to be fake if it didn't encompass leavers mis-spelling 'immigration'?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,598
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    A potential PM needs the support of MPs. Hunt and Mordaunt are clearly* far above the rest in this regard.

    *In accordance with the sound principles guided by Morris Dancer's wallet.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,699

    TGOHF said:

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.



    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
    So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.
    It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

    It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

    The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

    ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.
    Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

    If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,504
    kle4 said:

    Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

    What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.
    So how is Stormy Daniels involved?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    kle4 said:

    Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

    What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.
    Probably should have thought of that before they voted to invoke Article 50 but hey-ho.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,281

    I think the last Attorney General to become PM was Spencer Perceval - and he ended up being shot.

    That said, I think it's a good tip from Mike. The cabinet is not overflowing with talent and Cox is not readily identified with any faction, which is always an advantage - and would be a *huge* advantage were a consensus leader needed in extreme circumstances, such as the government having just lost a VoNC.

    There's a plaque on a house wall in my nearest town, St Neots, commemorating his assassin.

    http://d20u174ifpwkls.cloudfront.net/st-neots/files/2013/02/51050411137-538x525.jpg
  • TGOHF said:

    I hate people who don’t immunise their kids. Surely we should make it a crime?

    More than 500 children in London have had emergency measles vaccinations to stop an outbreak of the disease among strictly orthodox Jews.

    More than 60 cases have been reported since the beginning of October. The patients had not been immunised and most were Haredi Jews from Hackney and Haringey.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israeli-measles-epidemic-hits-uk-3wmcngcw6

    They should allow head teachers to ban any pupils not immunised from schools.
    If the other parents have their children immunised there is nothing to be concerned about for those parents. No we should not make it a crime, a quite ridiculous suggestion. We are still, (in spite of the referendum) a liberal democracy, and we should not force medical treatment on anyone or their children against their wishes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    kle4 said:

    Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

    What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.
    Probably should have thought of that before they voted to invoke Article 50 but hey-ho.
    Well yes. Lucky for them revocation is possible otherwise no deal was very real no matter how they cried about it, since most of them triggered a50.

    kle4 said:

    Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

    What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.
    So how is Stormy Daniels involved?
    I think it's the biggest question in the whole brexit debate.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,985
    Head & shoulders to replace TreSemme?

    I wish the Tories would just *** & Go!
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,657

    TGOHF said:

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.



    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
    So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.
    It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

    It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

    The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

    ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.
    Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

    If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.
    It would depend on the linkage I expect between the two.

    Say, we revoke on 28th March. Government falls. New election with the Tories being controlled by the ERG and they win an election on the basis they were re-submitt Art50.

    Then i think the 'new' claim would be valid, as there was no linkage between the first removal and the second notifiation.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,159

    Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

    We don't need her. Brexits been blown already.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,699

    TGOHF said:

    The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

    The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

    As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.



    So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?
    So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.
    It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

    It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

    The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

    ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.
    Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

    If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.
    It would depend on the linkage I expect between the two.

    Say, we revoke on 28th March. Government falls. New election with the Tories being controlled by the ERG and they win an election on the basis they were re-submitt Art50.

    Then i think the 'new' claim would be valid, as there was no linkage between the first removal and the second notifiation.
    I agree - I had chosen 28th/29th to imply the same people in charge but happy to clarify.

    The A-G seems to think the abuse could never be on the 28th, even though, in those circumstances the UK should surely be 'out' not in.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 550
    edited December 4
    He is a barrister - intelligent and articulate - which does put him head and shoulders above most. However, a PM needs to be able to lead, direct and master a whole range of subjects. I am not convinced as yet Cox has those qualities nor is a team player and leader. I am not sure I would trust him with issues like the economy, the NHS, welfare, defence etc Cox might well be able to provide clear and credible policies on those issues but in politics and policies he is untried and untested. Being better than muppets like May, Hammond, Jarvid and Hunt isn’t saying much. I want someone with a good business brain - if there is anyone - to take over from May who can’t leave soon enough. Clarke, but for his views on Europe, would have been ideal but too old now.
This discussion has been closed.