So just to clear up Boris win in the commons tomorrow on second reading. That’s not the end of it is it, because some like Nandy are backing a second reading to get keys for the deal and take it for a test drive. There’s still not a commitment to buy from all tomorrow’s second reading backers is there? 😼. The test drive might not go well, it might reveal bumps in the road, it might be a complicated drive as well as bumpy ride?
You mean they just want a chance to kick the liars tyres?
Cue minder theme tune. It’s I could be so good for you day tomorrow.
How viable and popular will The Surrender Deal be when it cannot get the support of even half of Remainers, and only 30% overall? Remain is more popular at 38%.
More Remainers, 14%, back the Boris Deal than the 7% of Leavers who back Remain and just 39% for Remain is a catastrophic decline of 9% for Remainers from the 48% they got even in 2016.
The Boris Deal is clearly the acceptable compromise for most voters
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
No deal doesn’t mean anything. It’s make believe and can mean anything to anyone. There’s no way it can be on the ballot paper.
If it won, we’d be in the exact same position as we are now with no idea of what version of no deal the people want.
Think rationally.
This is the remain argument but it has to be on any ballot as confirmed by Dominic Grieve
Indeed Farage would be in the Supreme Court immediately if his party was so disenfranchised
This is just another example of remain trying to influence the ballot for their own cause
What's the legal basis for a claim by a party which has no representation in Parliament?
Dominic Grieve has led the opposition to brexit and he is a former attorney general
He would not say it if he did not believe it
But was it a legal point or that he thinks it morally should be included? No lawyer here, but I cannot see what the justification would be on such a political quesiton.
Fairness to the total leave vote I assume
However, the panic from remainers is not surprising and when having a go at me, they need to listen to Dominic Grieve. He is the one who said it
You have, with the greatest respect, misunderstood what he said.
He was making a political point. Not a legal one. There is no legal basis, as far as I can see, for a party with no representation in Parliament to judicially review an Act of Parliament setting out the terms of an EU referendum. Happy to be corrected if one of the many lawyers on here thinks otherwise.
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
No deal doesn’t mean anything. It’s make believe and can mean anything to anyone. There’s no way it can be on the ballot paper.
If it won, we’d be in the exact same position as we are now with no idea of what version of no deal the people want.
Think rationally.
This is the remain argument but it has to be on any ballot as confirmed by Dominic Grieve
Indeed Farage would be in the Supreme Court immediately if his party was so disenfranchised
This is just another example of remain trying to influence the ballot for their own cause
What's the legal basis for a claim by a party which has no representation in Parliament?
Dominic Grieve has led the opposition to brexit and he is a former attorney general
He would not say it if he did not believe it
But was it a legal point or that he thinks it morally should be included? No lawyer here, but I cannot see what the justification would be on such a political quesiton.
Fairness to the total leave vote I assume
However, the panic from remainers is not surprising and when having a go at me, they need to listen to Dominic Grieve. He is the one who said it
I'm sorry, but you are being extremely petulant in that attitude. He claimed it, but you are relying on that to make a point and if you don't understand his point why are you so critical that people are 'having a go' at you for doing so?
You cannot act outraged and believe the Supreme Court would act to block parliament in this and then get affronted that people ask why and won't take 'don't ask me, Mr Grieve said it' as an answer. Particularly when you don't seem able to supply whether he was making it as a legal point, a moral point, or a political point.
By doing so you are pretending as if you are debating but then crying foul when people try to debate you.
7 pages of retained workers rights from EU law. Don't see much evidence of "stripping workers rights" there.
That is a consequence of the fact that the entire corpus of current EU law has been made part of British law. That tells you nothing about what will happen in future.
The concern on the Labour side, as I understand it, is any level playing field requirements are only in the PD and therefore will depend on what might be agreed in future. They are not guaranteed, as they were in May's WA. So once out a British government could change any of the rules on workers' rights, environmental standards etc if so minded. They could change them by watering them down or increasing them of course. What would happen would be in the control of the British Parliament.
Labour's concern is really that they fear Tory policies and it shows that they think that the Tories would win any election.
What neither have fully grasped is that both parties will be constrained by what may be necessary to achieve those fabled trade deals. But that is another story that no-one is much focusing on at the moment.
I really cannot see any prospect of us getting a FTA with the EU without a guarantee that we will afflict our industries with exactly as much overhead as they inflict on theirs (other interpretations of these rights are of course available). It's just not going to happen.
FPT Barnesian said: » show previous quotes Withdrawing the extension request increases the chance of No Deal if the WAB overruns as it probably will. Hence Letwin's amendment.
Gove is pretending there is still a risk of No Deal. There isn't. An extension will be offered and accepted. Gove is playing games with our money. £millions.
I said: I think that a sense of perspective is required. The cost of an extension is in excess of £200m a week. That's quite a lot of money so some pontificating liars can run their fantasies just one more time. I mean its not as if what is laughably called a debate is going to change a single mind or vote is it? No one is even pretending that.
There is no financial cost of extending as the amount paid is the same if we extend or are in transition. It is why the divorce bill is now £ 6 billion less.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
At 9.13am on the 21st October 1966, 116 children and 28 perished at the school and homes at Aberfan
And just 8 days later our first son was born and it was such an emotional time across the Nation
It's one of my wife's earliest memories. She has never forgotten the absolute horror. I was a year younger and I think my parents kept me away from it. Just a terrible, terrible thing.
It is seared into our memory
An artist nearby produced a huge painted mural with all the faces of the individual children rising up into Jesus's embrace
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
There is no such thing as No Deal. Any departure from the EU will require several agreements.
Unicorn No Deal should not be on the ballot.
I fear you will be disappointed.
It is Dominic Grieves policy and he will have a big input if it happens
Indeed he said in a recent interview 'it has to be on the ballot'
I am arguing with you not Grieve (although if he said that he too is wrong). Explain how we vote for something impossible with infinite outcomes.
Not my problem to be fair. It would be for the electoral commission and what is this 'if' he said it. He did
The electoral commission would have nothing to do with determining the options on the ballot. That’s a political decision.
Wasn't it the Electoral Commission that came up with "Remain/Leave" instead of "Yes/No" in the first place?
Just a slightly different approach but wtf was 95%+ of the WAIB not enacted more than a year ago? It is actually yet another example of how paralysed by the remainers within it Mrs May's government was throughout her premiership.
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
There is no such thing as No Deal. Any departure from the EU will require several agreements.
Unicorn No Deal should not be on the ballot.
I fear you will be disappointed.
It is Dominic Grieves policy and he will have a big input if it happens
Indeed he said in a recent interview 'it has to be on the ballot'
I am arguing with you not Grieve (although if he said that he too is wrong). Explain how we vote for something impossible with infinite outcomes.
Not my problem to be fair. It would be for the electoral commission and what is this 'if' he said it. He did
The electoral commission would have nothing to do with determining the options on the ballot. That’s a political decision.
Wasn't it the Electoral Commission that came up with "Remain/Leave" instead of "Yes/No" in the first place?
I don't recall. That would still be an issue of terminology of the question, not the options available.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
No deal doesn’t mean anything. It’s make believe and can mean anything to anyone. There’s no way it can be on the ballot paper.
If it won, we’d be in the exact same position as we are now with no idea of what version of no deal the people want.
Think rationally.
This is the remain argument but it has to be on any ballot as confirmed by Dominic Grieve
Indeed Farage would be in the Supreme Court immediately if his party was so disenfranchised
This is just another example of remain trying to influence the ballot for their own cause
What's the legal basis for a claim by a party which has no representation in Parliament?
Dominic Grieve has led the opposition to brexit and he is a former attorney general
He would not say it if he did not believe it
But was it a legal point or that he thinks it morally should be included? No lawyer here, but I cannot see what the justification would be on such a political quesiton.
Fairness to the total leave vote I assume
However, the panic from remainers is not surprising and when having a go at me, they need to listen to Dominic Grieve. He is the one who said it
You have, with the greatest respect, misunderstood what he said.
He was making a political point. Not a legal one. There is no legal basis, as far as I can see, for a party with no representation in Parliament to judicially review an Act of Parliament setting out the terms of an EU referendum. Happy to be corrected if one of the many lawyers on here thinks otherwise.
I accept your comments Cyclefree. It just adds to the mess brexit is (not your comments of course)
No EU referendum this year or next is 1.5 on BFExchange. What steps do we need to get there and how long does each take? Work backwards from 31 Dec 2020.
The PPERA requires a ten-week campaign, including designation and deciding the lead campaigner. That's 23 October 2020.
Before that there's 12 weeks of question testing. That's 30 July 2020.
Before then you've got to get the legislation for the ref through Parliament. The AV, EU, and NEAssembly refs all took about 25 weeks. An obstructive Commons would stretch this pretty much indefinitely, but we'll have to assume (see next para) that we have a really helpful Commons and Lords. Let's say one week. 23 July 2020.
But you need an agreeable Commons and on the maths now you haven't quite got one. And more importantly you need HMG on side, because the legislation is a money bill and needs a minister to sign it off. That means a change in Govt.
Again, no numbers for that right now, so you'd need an election. That's 45 days or thereabouts, adding in dissolution faff and a QS. Middle of June.
You can't start the process before 31 Oct. So even cutting down the legislation period and allowing for no legal challenges you have 152 working days or about 100 sitting days for, essentially, Corbyn to be ahead in the polls.
Add in the many ways out of this route and it looks like a safe way of tying up a few quid. DYOR, and I'm not in. Yet.
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
No deal doesn’t mean anything. It’s make believe and can mean anything to anyone. There’s no way it can be on the ballot paper.
If it won, we’d be in the exact same position as we are now with no idea of what version of no deal the people want.
Think rationally.
This is the remain argument but it has to be on any ballot as confirmed by Dominic Grieve
Indeed Farage would be in the Supreme Court immediately if his party was so disenfranchised
This is just another example of remain trying to influence the ballot for their own cause
What's the legal basis for a claim by a party which has no representation in Parliament?
Dominic Grieve has led the opposition to brexit and he is a former attorney general
He would not say it if he did not believe it
But was it a legal point or that he thinks it morally should be included? No lawyer here, but I cannot see what the justification would be on such a political quesiton.
Fairness to the total leave vote I assume
However, the panic from remainers is not surprising and when having a go at me, they need to listen to Dominic Grieve. He is the one who said it
I'm sorry, but you are being extremely petulant in that attitude. He claimed it, but you are relying on that to make a point and if you don't understand his point why are you so critical that people are 'having a go' at you for doing so?
You cannot act outraged and believe the Supreme Court would act to block parliament in this and then get affronted that people ask why and won't take 'don't ask me, Mr Grieve said it' as an answer. Particularly when you don't seem able to supply whether he was making it as a legal point, a moral point, or a political point.
By doing so you are pretending as if you are debating but then crying foul when people try to debate you.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
7 pages of retained workers rights from EU law. Don't see much evidence of "stripping workers rights" there.
That is a consequence of the fact that the entire corpus of current EU law has been made part of British law. That tells you nothing about what will happen in future.
The concern on the Labour side, as I understand it, is any level playing field requirements are only in the PD and therefore will depend on what might be agreed in future. They are not guaranteed, as they were in May's WA. So once out a British government could change any of the rules on workers' rights, environmental standards etc if so minded. They could change them by watering them down or increasing them of course. What would happen would be in the control of the British Parliament.
Labour's concern is really that they fear Tory policies and it shows that they think that the Tories would win any election.
What neither have fully grasped is that both parties will be constrained by what may be necessary to achieve those fabled trade deals. But that is another story that no-one is much focusing on at the moment.
I really cannot see any prospect of us getting a FTA with the EU without a guarantee that we will afflict our industries with exactly as much overhead as they inflict on theirs (other interpretations of these rights are of course available). It's just not going to happen.
So on June 31 when we have to ask for an extension of the transition period or not we will opt for no extension and no deal, it’s no wonder they are so keen to get this deal through. It also strips out any obligations to already agreed but not implemented new EU regulations, this is win/win for Johnson Tice and Banks,ensures millions to the Conservative party funds for years to come.
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
There is no such thing as No Deal. Any departure from the EU will require several agreements.
Unicorn No Deal should not be on the ballot.
I fear you will be disappointed.
It is Dominic Grieves policy and he will have a big input if it happens
Indeed he said in a recent interview 'it has to be on the ballot'
I am arguing with you not Grieve (although if he said that he too is wrong). Explain how we vote for something impossible with infinite outcomes.
Not my problem to be fair. It would be for the electoral commission and what is this 'if' he said it. He did
The electoral commission would have nothing to do with determining the options on the ballot. That’s a political decision.
Wasn't it the Electoral Commission that came up with "Remain/Leave" instead of "Yes/No" in the first place?
That changes the wording, not the options. They couldn't have insisted, for example, that Remain without opt outs be on the ballot.
Presented by Secretary Stephen Barclay,supported byThe Prime Minister, Michael Gove,The Chancellor of the Exchequer,Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Julian Smithand the Attorney General
I wonder why some go by title alone. I thought for a second Barcley was being supported by the Prime Minister Michael Gove, which was a bit of a shock.
(No I haven't read it, I just skipped to the end).
OK... I am not a lawyer. That Withdrawal Bill is one of the most impenetrable texts I have ever come across. There is no way it could be debated in an afternoon. I suspect that expert constitutional lwayers would take quite a while....
Just checking the cross-references could take days
FPT Barnesian said: » show previous quotes Withdrawing the extension request increases the chance of No Deal if the WAB overruns as it probably will. Hence Letwin's amendment.
Gove is pretending there is still a risk of No Deal. There isn't. An extension will be offered and accepted. Gove is playing games with our money. £millions.
I said: I think that a sense of perspective is required. The cost of an extension is in excess of £200m a week. That's quite a lot of money so some pontificating liars can run their fantasies just one more time. I mean its not as if what is laughably called a debate is going to change a single mind or vote is it? No one is even pretending that.
There is no financial cost of extending as the amount paid is the same if we extend or are in transition. It is why the divorce bill is now £ 6 billion less.
Not the same as no deal though is it?
And then there is the £500m a week the economy has allegedly lost as a result of the uncertainty. Extensions are not cost free. As it is the time for transition is very short, almost certainly too short unless the FTA is basically the transition redux. Cutting into it does have a price if it ends up being extended.
OK... I am not a lawyer. That Withdrawal Bill is one of the most impenetrable texts I have ever come across. There is no way it could be debated in an afternoon. I suspect that expert constitutional lwayers would take quite a while....
Just checking the cross-references could take days
I can only assume that a draft bill has already been past the constitutional lawyers.
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
No deal doesn’t mean anything. It’s make believe and can mean anything to anyone. There’s no way it can be on the ballot paper.
If it won, we’d be in the exact same position as we are now with no idea of what version of no deal the people want.
Think rationally.
This is the remain argument but it has to be on any ballot as confirmed by Dominic Grieve
Indeed Farage would be in the Supreme Court immediately if his party was so disenfranchised
This is just another example of remain trying to influence the ballot for their own cause
What's the legal basis for a claim by a party which has no representation in Parliament?
Dominic Grieve has led the opposition to brexit and he is a former attorney general
He would not say it if he did not believe it
But was it a legal point or that he thinks it morally should be included? No lawyer here, but I cannot see what the justification would be on such a political quesiton.
Fairness to the total leave vote I assume
However, the panic from remainers is not surprising and when having a go at me, they need to listen to Dominic Grieve. He is the one who said it
You have, with the greatest respect, misunderstood what he said.
He was making a political point. Not a legal one. There is no legal basis, as far as I can see, for a party with no representation in Parliament to judicially review an Act of Parliament setting out the terms of an EU referendum. Happy to be corrected if one of the many lawyers on here thinks otherwise.
I accept your comments Cyclefree. It just adds to the mess brexit is (not your comments of course)
I doubt there'll be a second referendum anyway. So it's all a bit pointless. Other than as a subject for the usual interesting debate on here - and I mean that genuinely.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
Just you see.
What will we see?
A load of geordie and Mackem MPs going round in circles in a lifeboat waving to dozens of their NW and Midlands colleagues in similarly amusingly crammed lifeboats whilst clown music plays and they all munch on ships biscuits A delightful whimsy in 100 parts
Would you suggest that negotiations start before the political declaration is agreed?
The clauses are ridiculous . It’s basically saying that the Commons has to agree what the government wants , not what it might like to put forward at that time . So you basically end up in a stalemate . Astonishing .
OK... I am not a lawyer. That Withdrawal Bill is one of the most impenetrable texts I have ever come across. There is no way it could be debated in an afternoon. I suspect that expert constitutional lwayers would take quite a while....
Just checking the cross-references could take days
That's why MPs have research assistants. And why we lawyers are worth our weight in gold.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
Just you see.
What will we see?
That getting Brexit delayed beyond 31st October will not prevent Boris claiming a "MASSIVE triumph". They will just backdate to an effective date of 31st October.
History will show we left the EU with effect from the 31st October 2019.
The subsequent general election will show Labour lost extra seats by trying to "make Boris not look quite so effective at getting a deal". And looking pillocks in the process.
Would you suggest that negotiations start before the political declaration is agreed?
The clauses are ridiculous . It’s basically saying that the Commons has to agree what the government wants , not what it might like to put forward at that time . So you basically end up in a stalemate . Astonishing .
Doesn't it say that the PD must be agreed before negotiations start? I'm not sure why that is contentious.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
Just you see.
What will we see?
A load of geordie and Mackem MPs going round in circles in a lifeboat waving to dozens of their NW and Midlands colleagues in similarly amusingly crammed lifeboats whilst clown music plays and they all munch on ships biscuits A delightful whimsy in 100 parts
Are you predicting Tory gains in Newcastle and Sunderland? It’s a view...
7 pages of retained workers rights from EU law. Don't see much evidence of "stripping workers rights" there.
That is a consequence of the fact that the entire corpus of current EU law has been made part of British law. That tells you nothing about what will happen in future.
The concern on the Labour side, as I understand it, is any level playing field requirements are only in the PD and therefore will depend on what might be agreed in future. They are not guaranteed, as they were in May's WA. So once out a British government could change any of the rules on workers' rights, environmental standards etc if so minded. They could change them by watering them down or increasing them of course. What would happen would be in the control of the British Parliament.
Labour's concern is really that they fear Tory policies and it shows that they think that the Tories would win any election.
What neither have fully grasped is that both parties will be constrained by what may be necessary to achieve those fabled trade deals. But that is another story that no-one is much focusing on at the moment.
I really cannot see any prospect of us getting a FTA with the EU without a guarantee that we will afflict our industries with exactly as much overhead as they inflict on theirs (other interpretations of these rights are of course available). It's just not going to happen.
So on June 31 when we have to ask for an extension of the transition period or not we will opt for no extension and no deal, it’s no wonder they are so keen to get this deal through. It also strips out any obligations to already agreed but not implemented new EU regulations, this is win/win for Johnson Tice and Banks,ensures millions to the Conservative party funds for years to come.
Brexit has changed many things but not, so far, the calendar. We will wait even longer for June 31 than we will for this Parliament to make up its mind about anything.
So opponents of EUref2 now outnumber supporters by 46% to 40%.
Shows the People's Vote marchers are increasingly out of touch
Actually that’s quite close in the current rush to stamp a deal.
If the deal fell and 2nd ref was announced do you think that polling would stay same or flip in big way?
It could but it would depend on the circumstances
However, this poll confirms no deal would have to be on the ballot. You cannot forget 19% of the electorate and the support for deal - no deal - remain referendum would be interesting
No deal doesn’t mean anything. It’s make believe and can mean anything to anyone. There’s no way it can be on the ballot paper.
If it won, we’d be in the exact same position as we are now with no idea of what version of no deal the people want.
Think rationally.
This is the remain argument but it has to be on any ballot as confirmed by Dominic Grieve
Indeed Farage would be in the Supreme Court immediately if his party was so disenfranchised
This is just another example of remain trying to influence the ballot for their own cause
What's the legal basis for a claim by a party which has no representation in Parliament?
Dominic Grieve has led the opposition to brexit and he is a former attorney general
He would not say it if he did not believe it
But was it a legal point or that he thinks it morally should be included? No lawyer here, but I cannot see what the justification would be on such a political quesiton.
Fairness to the total leave vote I assume
However, the panic from remainers is not surprising and when having a go at me, they need to listen to Dominic Grieve. He is the one who said it
You have, with the greatest respect, misunderstood what he said.
He was making a political point. Not a legal one. There is no legal basis, as far as I can see, for a party with no representation in Parliament to judicially review an Act of Parliament setting out the terms of an EU referendum. Happy to be corrected if one of the many lawyers on here thinks otherwise.
IANAL, but I suspect that given that they will be overturning an Electoral Commission recommendation on a highly political matter to the disadvantage of one side, the courts might explore natural justice.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
"Ah, but he took until late November last year, not the end of October" might not be an unambiguously persuasive message for Lab/LD canvassers when we've been out for 6 or 7 months.
FPT Barnesian said: » show previous quotes Withdrawing the extension request increases the chance of No Deal if the WAB overruns as it probably will. Hence Letwin's amendment.
Gove is pretending there is still a risk of No Deal. There isn't. An extension will be offered and accepted. Gove is playing games with our money. £millions.
I said: I think that a sense of perspective is required. The cost of an extension is in excess of £200m a week. That's quite a lot of money so some pontificating liars can run their fantasies just one more time. I mean its not as if what is laughably called a debate is going to change a single mind or vote is it? No one is even pretending that.
There is no financial cost of extending as the amount paid is the same if we extend or are in transition. It is why the divorce bill is now £ 6 billion less.
Not the same as no deal though is it?
And then there is the £500m a week the economy has allegedly lost as a result of the uncertainty. Extensions are not cost free. As it is the time for transition is very short, almost certainly too short unless the FTA is basically the transition redux. Cutting into it does have a price if it ends up being extended.
Certainly Brexit has an adverse financial impact, I don't think anyone disputes that now.
BoZo has sworn that he won't extend the Transition. Whether you believe him...
Would you suggest that negotiations start before the political declaration is agreed?
The clauses are ridiculous . It’s basically saying that the Commons has to agree what the government wants , not what it might like to put forward at that time . So you basically end up in a stalemate . Astonishing .
FPT Barnesian said: » show previous quotes Withdrawing the extension request increases the chance of No Deal if the WAB overruns as it probably will. Hence Letwin's amendment.
Gove is pretending there is still a risk of No Deal. There isn't. An extension will be offered and accepted. Gove is playing games with our money. £millions.
I said: I think that a sense of perspective is required. The cost of an extension is in excess of £200m a week. That's quite a lot of money so some pontificating liars can run their fantasies just one more time. I mean its not as if what is laughably called a debate is going to change a single mind or vote is it? No one is even pretending that.
There is no financial cost of extending as the amount paid is the same if we extend or are in transition. It is why the divorce bill is now £ 6 billion less.
Not the same as no deal though is it?
And then there is the £500m a week the economy has allegedly lost as a result of the uncertainty. Extensions are not cost free. As it is the time for transition is very short, almost certainly too short unless the FTA is basically the transition redux. Cutting into it does have a price if it ends up being extended.
Certainly Brexit has an adverse financial impact, I don't think anyone disputes that now.
Yes it’s cost me a bloody fortune over the last three years somewhere between 10 and 20%
Would you suggest that negotiations start before the political declaration is agreed?
The clauses are ridiculous . It’s basically saying that the Commons has to agree what the government wants , not what it might like to put forward at that time . So you basically end up in a stalemate . Astonishing .
Doesn't it say that the PD must be agreed before negotiations start? I'm not sure why that is contentious.
It says the future negotiations must comply with what the government agreed on October 17 , and the next clause says the Commons basically has no choice but to agree with them otherwise they’ll never start . So it’s a ruse suggesting MPs have a choice when they don’t .
OK... I am not a lawyer. That Withdrawal Bill is one of the most impenetrable texts I have ever come across. There is no way it could be debated in an afternoon. I suspect that expert constitutional lwayers would take quite a while....
Just checking the cross-references could take days
Does it have a horoscope? How about one of those photo stories like “is my majority Cheating on me?”
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
Just you see.
What will we see?
A load of geordie and Mackem MPs going round in circles in a lifeboat waving to dozens of their NW and Midlands colleagues in similarly amusingly crammed lifeboats whilst clown music plays and they all munch on ships biscuits A delightful whimsy in 100 parts
Are you predicting Tory gains in Newcastle and Sunderland? It’s a view...
Not the city of Newcastle but the outskirts are vulnerable and I've clearly said on here many times that if Labour poll under 25% then theyll lose Sunderland Central to the Tories. Clearly if they recover in the campaign they wont. I see nothing to suggest they will recover. They are loathed, and moribund
Edit - I remember a Mr Senior on here poo pooing my suggestions of LD seats that would be lost in 2015. And certain guffawing at my suggestion of Con gain Ayrshire South in 2017 too. We will see.
Reading the bill it is clear why the DUP are so annoyed.
I think I know why the ERG are backing this bill, we can go for WTO Brexit next year.
Remainers missed a chance to lock the UK into a customs union with the EU by voting down May's deal?
I'm fine with No Deal, the government's own analysis shows the poorest get hit the hardest with No Deal, is only fair they get the biggest Brexit Dividend.
I'm with Govey, sustained No Deal means we Rejoin, the reactions of Leavers when they have to swallow the Euro and Schengen will be worth it.
OK... I am not a lawyer. That Withdrawal Bill is one of the most impenetrable texts I have ever come across. There is no way it could be debated in an afternoon. I suspect that expert constitutional lwayers would take quite a while....
Just checking the cross-references could take days
But it can rejected in seconds?
On principles, perhaps, in which case they can definitely do second reading since they have already discussed those. (funnily enough parliament's website suggests second reading is 'It usually takes place no sooner than two weekends after first reading.'.
Would you suggest that negotiations start before the political declaration is agreed?
The clauses are ridiculous . It’s basically saying that the Commons has to agree what the government wants , not what it might like to put forward at that time . So you basically end up in a stalemate . Astonishing .
Doesn't it say that the PD must be agreed before negotiations start? I'm not sure why that is contentious.
It says the future negotiations must comply with what the government agreed on October 17 , and the next clause says the Commons basically has no choice but to agree with them otherwise they’ll never start . So it’s a ruse suggesting MPs have a choice when they don’t .
Well of course future negotiations have to comply with the political declaration. That's the point of it, isn't it?
Reading the bill it is clear why the DUP are so annoyed.
I think I know why the ERG are backing this bill, we can go for WTO Brexit next year.
Remainers missed a chance to lock the UK into a customs union with the EU by voting down May's deal?
Both myself and Nabavi (If I remember correctly) did point out that May had essentially internalised the compromises of Brexit in her deal. This is far more a Leaver's Brexit now - be in no doubt.
7 pages of retained workers rights from EU law. Don't see much evidence of "stripping workers rights" there.
That is a consequence of the fact that the entire corpus of current EU law has been made part of British law. That tells you nothing about what will happen in future.
The concern on the Labour side, as I understand it, is any level playing field requirements are only in the PD and therefore will depend on what might be agreed in future. They are not guaranteed, as they were in May's WA. So once out a British government could change any of the rules on workers' rights, environmental standards etc if so minded. They could change them by watering them down or increasing them of course. What would happen would be in the control of the British Parliament.
Labour's concern is really that they fear Tory policies and it shows that they think that the Tories would win any election.
What neither have fully grasped is that both parties will be constrained by what may be necessary to achieve those fabled trade deals. But that is another story that no-one is much focusing on at the moment.
I really cannot see any prospect of us getting a FTA with the EU without a guarantee that we will afflict our industries with exactly as much overhead as they inflict on theirs (other interpretations of these rights are of course available). It's just not going to happen.
So on June 31 when we have to ask for an extension of the transition period or not we will opt for no extension and no deal, it’s no wonder they are so keen to get this deal through. It also strips out any obligations to already agreed but not implemented new EU regulations, this is win/win for Johnson Tice and Banks,ensures millions to the Conservative party funds for years to come.
Would you suggest that negotiations start before the political declaration is agreed?
The clauses are ridiculous . It’s basically saying that the Commons has to agree what the government wants , not what it might like to put forward at that time . So you basically end up in a stalemate . Astonishing .
Doesn't it say that the PD must be agreed before negotiations start? I'm not sure why that is contentious.
It says the future negotiations must comply with what the government agreed on October 17 , and the next clause says the Commons basically has no choice but to agree with them otherwise they’ll never start . So it’s a ruse suggesting MPs have a choice when they don’t .
Reading the bill it is clear why the DUP are so annoyed.
I think I know why the ERG are backing this bill, we can go for WTO Brexit next year.
Remainers missed a chance to lock the UK into a customs union with the EU by voting down May's deal?
Both myself and Nabavi (If I remember correctly) did point out that May had essentially internalised the compromises of Brexit in her deal. This is far more a Leaver's Brexit now - be in no doubt.
That is undoubtedly true. May's deal was much more of a compromise between the competing camps than Boris's. I think with May we would have ended up with something very like EFTA. We may get there anyway but the road is much less clearly marked.
Not sure why that is notable really - the intent to ask for one has been loudly trailed, why wouldn't the government prepare it.
That, at least, is three hours they can definitely slim down, since it really is something years has been spent talking about the possibility of. More time to focus on actual substance, and just get to the vote on the ref point.
7 pages of retained workers rights from EU law. Don't see much evidence of "stripping workers rights" there.
That is a consequence of the fact that the entire corpus of current EU law has been made part of British law. That tells you nothing about what will happen in future.
The concern on the Labour side, as I understand it, is any level playing field requirements are only in the PD and therefore will depend on what might be agreed in future. They are not guaranteed, as they were in May's WA. So once out a British government could change any of the rules on workers' rights, environmental standards etc if so minded. They could change them by watering them down or increasing them of course. What would happen would be in the control of the British Parliament.
Labour's concern is really that they fear Tory policies and it shows that they think that the Tories would win any election.
What neither have fully grasped is that both parties will be constrained by what may be necessary to achieve those fabled trade deals. But that is another story that no-one is much focusing on at the moment.
I really cannot see any prospect of us getting a FTA with the EU without a guarantee that we will afflict our industries with exactly as much overhead as they inflict on theirs (other interpretations of these rights are of course available). It's just not going to happen.
So on June 31 when we have to ask for an extension of the transition period or not we will opt for no extension and no deal, it’s no wonder they are so keen to get this deal through. It also strips out any obligations to already agreed but not implemented new EU regulations, this is win/win for Johnson Tice and Banks,ensures millions to the Conservative party funds for years to come.
Brexit has changed many things but not, so far, the calendar. We will wait even longer for June 31 than we will for this Parliament to make up its mind about anything.
I think ? That they need to request extension by 31/6 but I may be mistaken, not a political point but one of the many questions surround all this.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
Just you see.
What will we see?
A load of geordie and Mackem MPs going round in circles in a lifeboat waving to dozens of their NW and Midlands colleagues in similarly amusingly crammed lifeboats whilst clown music plays and they all munch on ships biscuits A delightful whimsy in 100 parts
Are you predicting Tory gains in Newcastle and Sunderland? It’s a view...
Not the city of Newcastle but the outskirts are vulnerable and I've clearly said on here many times that if Labour poll under 25% then theyll lose Sunderland Central to the Tories. Clearly if they recover in the campaign they wont. I see nothing to suggest they will recover. They are loathed, and moribund
Edit - I remember a Mr Senior on here poo pooing my suggestions of LD seats that would be lost in 2015. And certain guffawing at my suggestion of Con gain Ayrshire South in 2017 too. We will see.
Which outskirts?
Tynemouth? Gateshead? Jarrow? Blyth Valley? Blaydon? Wansbeck? South Shields? North Tyneside?
7 pages of retained workers rights from EU law. Don't see much evidence of "stripping workers rights" there.
That is a consequence of the fact that the entire corpus of current EU law has been made part of British law. That tells you nothing about what will happen in future.
The concern on the Labour side, as I understand it, is any level playing field requirements are only in the PD and therefore will depend on what might be agreed in future. They are not guaranteed, as they were in May's WA. So once out a British government could change any of the rules on workers' rights, environmental standards etc if so minded. They could change them by watering them down or increasing them of course. What would happen would be in the control of the British Parliament.
Labour's concern is really that they fear Tory policies and it shows that they think that the Tories would win any election.
What neither have fully grasped is that both parties will be constrained by what may be necessary to achieve those fabled trade deals. But that is another story that no-one is much focusing on at the moment.
I really cannot see any prospect of us getting a FTA with the EU without a guarantee that we will afflict our industries with exactly as much overhead as they inflict on theirs (other interpretations of these rights are of course available). It's just not going to happen.
So on June 31 when we have to ask for an extension of the transition period or not we will opt for no extension and no deal, it’s no wonder they are so keen to get this deal through. It also strips out any obligations to already agreed but not implemented new EU regulations, this is win/win for Johnson Tice and Banks,ensures millions to the Conservative party funds for years to come.
Brexit has changed many things but not, so far, the calendar. We will wait even longer for June 31 than we will for this Parliament to make up its mind about anything.
I think ? That they need to request extension by 31/6 but I may be mistaken, not a political point but one of the many questions surround all this.
7 pages of retained workers rights from EU law. Don't see much evidence of "stripping workers rights" there.
That is a consequence of the fact that the entire corpus of current EU law has been made part of British law. That tells you nothing about what will happen in future.
The concern on the Labour side, as I understand it, is any level playing field requirements are only in the PD and therefore will depend on what might be agreed in future. They are not guaranteed, as they were in May's WA. So once out a British government could change any of the rules on workers' rights, environmental standards etc if so minded. They could change them by watering them down or increasing them of course. What would happen would be in the control of the British Parliament.
Labour's concern is really that they fear Tory policies and it shows that they think that the Tories would win any election.
What neither have fully grasped is that both parties will be constrained by what may be necessary to achieve those fabled trade deals. But that is another story that no-one is much focusing on at the moment.
I really cannot see any prospect of us getting a FTA with the EU without a guarantee that we will afflict our industries with exactly as much overhead as they inflict on theirs (other interpretations of these rights are of course available). It's just not going to happen.
So on June 31 when we have to ask for an extension of the transition period or not we will opt for no extension and no deal, it’s no wonder they are so keen to get this deal through. It also strips out any obligations to already agreed but not implemented new EU regulations, this is win/win for Johnson Tice and Banks,ensures millions to the Conservative party funds for years to come.
Brexit has changed many things but not, so far, the calendar. We will wait even longer for June 31 than we will for this Parliament to make up its mind about anything.
I think ? That they need to request extension by 31/6 but I may be mistaken, not a political point but one of the many questions surround all this.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
Just you see.
What will we see?
That getting Brexit delayed beyond 31st October will not prevent Boris claiming a "MASSIVE triumph". They will just backdate to an effective date of 31st October.
History will show we left the EU with effect from the 31st October 2019.
The subsequent general election will show Labour lost extra seats by trying to "make Boris not look quite so effective at getting a deal". And looking pillocks in the process.
History will show that the UK made the most stupid collective decision ever.
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
Just you see.
What will we see?
That getting Brexit delayed beyond 31st October will not prevent Boris claiming a "MASSIVE triumph". They will just backdate to an effective date of 31st October.
History will show we left the EU with effect from the 31st October 2019.
The subsequent general election will show Labour lost extra seats by trying to "make Boris not look quite so effective at getting a deal". And looking pillocks in the process.
History will show that the UK made the most stupid collective decision ever.
You seriously follow that overgrown schoolboys dubious blog?
For moments of amusement like that, yes, I dip in briefly.
And because of the simple pleasure that posting links to it on here seems to excessively rile some folk....
I occasionally ‘dip in’ to bolster my view that I’m happy with my opinions, if I ever really struggle I just go to the comments to realize why I think like I do.
The costs incurred (let alone the horrific death toll) as a result of the misuse and promotion of these drugs will exceed this every month. An absolute sweet heart deal that will undoubtedly ensure that Trump has no problem funding re-election.
You seriously follow that overgrown schoolboys dubious blog?
For moments of amusement like that, yes, I dip in briefly.
And because of the simple pleasure that posting links to it on here seems to excessively rile some folk....
I occasionally ‘dip in’ to bolster my view that I’m happy with my opinions, if I ever really struggle I just go to the comments to realize why I think like I do.
7 pages of retained workers rights from EU law. Don't see much evidence of "stripping workers rights" there.
That is a consequence of the fact that the entire corpus of current EU law has been made part of British law. That tells you nothing about what will happen in future.
The concern on the Labour side, as I understand it, is any level playing field requirements are only in the PD and therefore will depend on what might be agreed in future. They are not guaranteed, as they were in May's WA. So once out a British government could change any of the rules on workers' rights, environmental standards etc if so minded. They could change them by watering them down or increasing them of course. What would happen would be in the control of the British Parliament.
Labour's concern is really that they fear Tory policies and it shows that they think that the Tories would win any election.
What neither have fully grasped is that both parties will be constrained by what may be necessary to achieve those fabled trade deals. But that is another story that no-one is much focusing on at the moment.
I really cannot see any prospect of us getting a FTA with the EU without a guarantee that we will afflict our industries with exactly as much overhead as they inflict on theirs (other interpretations of these rights are of course available). It's just not going to happen.
So on June 31 when we have to ask for an extension of the transition period or not we will opt for no extension and no deal, it’s no wonder they are so keen to get this deal through. It also strips out any obligations to already agreed but not implemented new EU regulations, this is win/win for Johnson Tice and Banks,ensures millions to the Conservative party funds for years to come.
Brexit has changed many things but not, so far, the calendar. We will wait even longer for June 31 than we will for this Parliament to make up its mind about anything.
I think ? That they need to request extension by 31/6 but I may be mistaken, not a political point but one of the many questions surround all this.
Requesting anything on 31/6 may be challenging
Indeed, those double-leap years are quite rare.
Ok 30/6 but it is a serious question do we have to request the extension to the transition by then?
So this is all over bar the shouting - Johnson will be taking us out of the EU with this Deal.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
And in the pointless-save-for-being-spiteful blocking of Brexit until after this date, the parties doing that blocking are going to get an even bigger kick up the arse than they might have done before.....
Just you see.
What will we see?
A load of geordie and Mackem MPs going round in circles in a lifeboat waving to dozens of their NW and Midlands colleagues in similarly amusingly crammed lifeboats whilst clown music plays and they all munch on ships biscuits A delightful whimsy in 100 parts
Are you predicting Tory gains in Newcastle and Sunderland? It’s a view...
Not the city of Newcastle but the outskirts are vulnerable and I've clearly said on here many times that if Labour poll under 25% then theyll lose Sunderland Central to the Tories. Clearly if they recover in the campaign they wont. I see nothing to suggest they will recover. They are loathed, and moribund
Edit - I remember a Mr Senior on here poo pooing my suggestions of LD seats that would be lost in 2015. And certain guffawing at my suggestion of Con gain Ayrshire South in 2017 too. We will see.
Which outskirts?
Tynemouth? Gateshead? Jarrow? Blyth Valley? Blaydon? Wansbeck? South Shields? North Tyneside?
Which ones are vulnerable?
Probably Blyth Valley and Tynemouth would be achievable on a 40/25 result con vs lab nationally, with Newcastle North close. Clearly any less of a margin and they will be safe and Blyth Valley is Ronnie Campbell territory, if he backs the bill that might save him even on a landslide night The rest of geordie land is safe unless the LDs storm somewhere. Sunderland central as I said the other 2 a bridge too far but in the NE Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield and Hartlepool are all dropping for sure
Edit - ince an election is announced I'll sniff the air and offer you a bet on a seat in sunderland and one in geordieland framed around the situation at the time.
This is the remain argument but it has to be on any ballot as confirmed by Dominic Grieve
Indeed Farage would be in the Supreme Court immediately if his party was so disenfranchised
This is just another example of remain trying to influence the ballot for their own cause
What's the legal basis for a claim by a party which has no representation in Parliament?
Dominic Grieve has led the opposition to brexit and he is a former attorney general
He would not say it if he did not believe it
But was it a legal point or that he thinks it morally should be included? No lawyer here, but I cannot see what the justification would be on such a political quesiton.
Fairness to the total leave vote I assume
However, the panic from remainers is not surprising and when having a go at me, they need to listen to Dominic Grieve. He is the one who said it
You have, with the greatest respect, misunderstood what he said.
He was making a political point. Not a legal one. There is no legal basis, as far as I can see, for a party with no representation in Parliament to judicially review an Act of Parliament setting out the terms of an EU referendum. Happy to be corrected if one of the many lawyers on here thinks otherwise.
IANAL, but I suspect that given that they will be overturning an Electoral Commission recommendation on a highly political matter to the disadvantage of one side, the courts might explore natural justice.
Parliament determines the options. In an Act. The Electoral Commission would not be involved before then. There would be no overturning of anything involved. I don't see how "natural justice" would even begin to found a claim or who it would be against.
All interesting but theoretical since I don't expect there to be a 2nd referendum.
Incidentally, I hope you have looked up the Parthenopean Republic and Nelson's rather dismal role in the whole affair and now realise Napoleon was the good guy.
Cummings may want one. He's much more comfortable with the referendum format than party politics.
I'm not sure about that - Nick Timothy took a mountain of electoral gold and turned it to lead for May. Cummings has taken a pile of lead and is busy doing alchemy on it for the Tories right now.
A 'confirmatory plebiscite', please, in polite company ...
But this timetable is mad. How long was it in 1971 to debate the legislation taking us into the EEC? I think by the way that the govt majority plummetted from 114 to <10 during those debates.
Then, how many weeks was it for the committee stages of Maastricht? This is much more final than that.
You seriously follow that overgrown schoolboys dubious blog?
For moments of amusement like that, yes, I dip in briefly.
And because of the simple pleasure that posting links to it on here seems to excessively rile some folk....
I occasionally ‘dip in’ to bolster my view that I’m happy with my opinions, if I ever really struggle I just go to the comments to realize why I think like I do.
I mainly log on to see if Jolyon has lost again.
After tax and death lawyers will always make money
The costs incurred (let alone the horrific death toll) as a result of the misuse and promotion of these drugs will exceed this every month. An absolute sweet heart deal that will undoubtedly ensure that Trump has no problem funding re-election.
This is two *counties* in Ohio
Google tells me there are 88 counties in the State. Just taking the three distributors mentioned, that implies $10bn for all of Ohio. Ohio will - I suspect - be one of the harder hit States, and these are probably the worst hit counties. But you will still be looking at >$100bn for all of the US.
And then you have the drugmarkers as well as the distributors (e.g. the Sacklers are contributing $11bn personally)
Reading the bill it is clear why the DUP are so annoyed.
I think I know why the ERG are backing this bill, we can go for WTO Brexit next year.
Remainers missed a chance to lock the UK into a customs union with the EU by voting down May's deal?
I'm fine with No Deal, the government's own analysis shows the poorest get hit the hardest with No Deal, is only fair they get the biggest Brexit Dividend.
I'm with Govey, sustained No Deal means we Rejoin, the reactions of Leavers when they have to swallow the Euro and Schengen will be worth it.
That's our TSE. Always putting his opportunities for schadenfreude ahead of the good of the country.
Just remember that if that day ever comes you will be celebrating us rejoining on French terms. In fact I might suggest we send you as permanent ambassador to the Elysee Palace for your sins
A 'confirmatory plebiscite', please, in polite company ...
But this timetable is mad. How long was it in 1971 to debate the legislation taking us into the EEC? I think by the way that the govt majority plummetted from 114 to <10 during those debates.
Then, how many weeks was it for the committee stages of Maastricht? This is much more final than that. </p>
It's not being decided this week. All those ex-con and labour who backed Letwin, some of them at least support the bill but want proper scrutiny, it wasn't all those trying to obstruct it, but they'll team up again to give more time.
This is the remain argument but it has to be on any ballot as confirmed by Dominic Grieve
Indeed Farage would be in the Supreme Court immediately if his party was so disenfranchised
This is just another example of remain trying to influence the ballot for their own cause
What's the legal basis for a claim by a party which has no representation in Parliament?
Dominic Grieve has led the opposition to brexit and he is a former attorney general
He would not say it if he did not believe it
But was it a legal point or that he thinks it morally should be included? No lawyer here, but I cannot see what the justification would be on such a political quesiton.
Fairness to the total leave vote I assume
However, the panic from remainers is not surprising and when having a go at me, they need to listen to Dominic Grieve. He is the one who said it
You have, with the greatest respect, misunderstood what he said.
He was making a political point. Not a legal one. There is no legal basis, as far as I can see, for a party with no representation in Parliament to judicially review an Act of Parliament setting out the terms of an EU referendum. Happy to be corrected if one of the many lawyers on here thinks otherwise.
IANAL, but I suspect that given that they will be overturning an Electoral Commission recommendation on a highly political matter to the disadvantage of one side, the courts might explore natural justice.
Parliament determines the options. In an Act. The Electoral Commission would not be involved before then. There would be no overturning of anything involved. I don't see how "natural justice" would even begin to found a claim or who it would be against.
All interesting but theoretical since I don't expect there to be a 2nd referendum.
Incidentally, I hope you have looked up the Parthenopean Republic and Nelson's rather dismal role in the whole affair and now realise Napoleon was the good guy.
I've never been a fan of the Duke of Bronte, mainly because of his silly name.
I much prefer my fellow Irishman, Arthur Wellesley
The costs incurred (let alone the horrific death toll) as a result of the misuse and promotion of these drugs will exceed this every month. An absolute sweet heart deal that will undoubtedly ensure that Trump has no problem funding re-election.
This is two *counties* in Ohio
Google tells me there are 88 counties in the State. Just taking the three distributors mentioned, that implies $10bn for all of Ohio. Ohio will - I suspect - be one of the harder hit States, and these are probably the worst hit counties. But you will still be looking at >$100bn for all of the US.
And then you have the drugmarkers as well as the distributors (e.g. the Sacklers are contributing $11bn personally)
Right, I had misread it. Can the pharma industry in fact survive this disaster?
The costs incurred (let alone the horrific death toll) as a result of the misuse and promotion of these drugs will exceed this every month. An absolute sweet heart deal that will undoubtedly ensure that Trump has no problem funding re-election.
Isn't that just the compensation for those two Ohio counties? Presumably many more will follow.
Incidentally, I am seeing more and more prescription opioid abuse here. Sadly it looks as once more we will copy the USA, 15 years behind.
Comments
https://twitter.com/paulfscott/status/1186356484264910849?s=21
He was making a political point. Not a legal one. There is no legal basis, as far as I can see, for a party with no representation in Parliament to judicially review an Act of Parliament setting out the terms of an EU referendum. Happy to be corrected if one of the many lawyers on here thinks otherwise.
You cannot act outraged and believe the Supreme Court would act to block parliament in this and then get affronted that people ask why and won't take 'don't ask me, Mr Grieve said it' as an answer. Particularly when you don't seem able to supply whether he was making it as a legal point, a moral point, or a political point.
By doing so you are pretending as if you are debating but then crying foul when people try to debate you.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1186258979439165440
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1186359920083558400
Nothing to do with my bf position.
Edit: ok that last bit was a lie.
The key thing now for all people of sound mind and good character is that he is not allowed the MASSIVE triumph of doing so on the iconic date of 31 October.
He has to miss the deadline for there to be a fighting chance of avoiding a big GE win for him and the motliest set of Tories we have seen in many a long year.
It is worth continuing the guerilla warfare in parliament purely in order to achieve this objective. He must NOT be allowed to get Brexit done by that magic date.
An artist nearby produced a huge painted mural with all the faces of the individual children rising up into Jesus's embrace
It makes me weep just remembering it
Just you see.
The PPERA requires a ten-week campaign, including designation and deciding the lead campaigner. That's 23 October 2020.
Before that there's 12 weeks of question testing. That's 30 July 2020.
Before then you've got to get the legislation for the ref through Parliament. The AV, EU, and NEAssembly refs all took about 25 weeks. An obstructive Commons would stretch this pretty much indefinitely, but we'll have to assume (see next para) that we have a really helpful Commons and Lords. Let's say one week. 23 July 2020.
But you need an agreeable Commons and on the maths now you haven't quite got one. And more importantly you need HMG on side, because the legislation is a money bill and needs a minister to sign it off. That means a change in Govt.
Again, no numbers for that right now, so you'd need an election. That's 45 days or thereabouts, adding in dissolution faff and a QS. Middle of June.
You can't start the process before 31 Oct. So even cutting down the legislation period and allowing for no legal challenges you have 152 working days or about 100 sitting days for, essentially, Corbyn to be ahead in the polls.
Add in the many ways out of this route and it looks like a safe way of tying up a few quid. DYOR, and I'm not in. Yet.
https://order-order.com/2019/10/21/phil-hammond-curb-analysis/
Presented by Secretary Stephen Barclay,supported byThe Prime Minister, Michael Gove,The Chancellor of the Exchequer,Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Julian Smithand the Attorney General
I wonder why some go by title alone. I thought for a second Barcley was being supported by the Prime Minister Michael Gove, which was a bit of a shock.
(No I haven't read it, I just skipped to the end).
Just checking the cross-references could take days
And then there is the £500m a week the economy has allegedly lost as a result of the uncertainty. Extensions are not cost free. As it is the time for transition is very short, almost certainly too short unless the FTA is basically the transition redux. Cutting into it does have a price if it ends up being extended.
A delightful whimsy in 100 parts
History will show we left the EU with effect from the 31st October 2019.
The subsequent general election will show Labour lost extra seats by trying to "make Boris not look quite so effective at getting a deal". And looking pillocks in the process.
I think I know why the ERG are backing this bill, we can go for WTO Brexit next year.
BoZo has sworn that he won't extend the Transition. Whether you believe him...
Edit - I remember a Mr Senior on here poo pooing my suggestions of LD seats that would be lost in 2015. And certain guffawing at my suggestion of Con gain Ayrshire South in 2017 too. We will see.
I'm with Govey, sustained No Deal means we Rejoin, the reactions of Leavers when they have to swallow the Euro and Schengen will be worth it.
On principles, perhaps, in which case they can definitely do second reading since they have already discussed those. (funnily enough parliament's website suggests second reading is 'It usually takes place no sooner than two weekends after first reading.'.
This is far more a Leaver's Brexit now - be in no doubt.
https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1186364438447902720
That, at least, is three hours they can definitely slim down, since it really is something years has been spent talking about the possibility of. More time to focus on actual substance, and just get to the vote on the ref point.
Tynemouth? Gateshead? Jarrow? Blyth Valley? Blaydon? Wansbeck? South Shields? North Tyneside?
Which ones are vulnerable?
And because of the simple pleasure that posting links to it on here seems to excessively rile some folk....
History will show that the UK made the most stupid collective decision ever.
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1186297038444605440
The costs incurred (let alone the horrific death toll) as a result of the misuse and promotion of these drugs will exceed this every month. An absolute sweet heart deal that will undoubtedly ensure that Trump has no problem funding re-election.
The rest of geordie land is safe unless the LDs storm somewhere.
Sunderland central as I said the other 2 a bridge too far but in the NE Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield and Hartlepool are all dropping for sure
Edit - ince an election is announced I'll sniff the air and offer you a bet on a seat in sunderland and one in geordieland framed around the situation at the time.
All interesting but theoretical since I don't expect there to be a 2nd referendum.
Incidentally, I hope you have looked up the Parthenopean Republic and Nelson's rather dismal role in the whole affair and now realise Napoleon was the good guy.
Is the only way the fans will learn.
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1186367105626714118
But this timetable is mad. How long was it in 1971 to debate the legislation taking us into the EEC? I think by the way that the govt majority plummetted from 114 to <10 during those debates.
Then, how many weeks was it for the committee stages of Maastricht? This is much more final than that.
Google tells me there are 88 counties in the State. Just taking the three distributors mentioned, that implies $10bn for all of Ohio. Ohio will - I suspect - be one of the harder hit States, and these are probably the worst hit counties. But you will still be looking at >$100bn for all of the US.
And then you have the drugmarkers as well as the distributors (e.g. the Sacklers are contributing $11bn personally)
Just remember that if that day ever comes you will be celebrating us rejoining on French terms. In fact I might suggest we send you as permanent ambassador to the Elysee Palace for your sins
I much prefer my fellow Irishman, Arthur Wellesley
Spurs might get their fans to pretend to be other clubs fans in order to get the deduct and win the league
Incidentally, I am seeing more and more prescription opioid abuse here. Sadly it looks as once more we will copy the USA, 15 years behind.