Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
Apparently if Brexit hasn't happened by Spring 2019 Farage will return to campaigning.
Reason enough to get it done quick, right?
Reason enough to get it done quick, right?
can't we just have him shot?
No, because of Human Rights
Not for long...
I welcome the future freedom our soldiers will have to line civilians up against walls without fear of legal repercussion s.
Lonewolves wrote:
I hope they take it all the way to the ECJ in Luxembourg.
Common misconception, you do not appeal court cases to the ECJ.
Not since we banned him.
Grim... wrote:
Not since we banned him.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
I hope they take it all the way to the ECJ in Luxembourg.
Common misconception, you do not appeal court cases to the ECJ.
The Judges would have to refer it themselves, is that correct? From what I've read of this, that seems unlikely.
So what does this mean. I am finding it confusing.
KovacsC wrote:
So what does this mean. I am finding it confusing.
Treesah wanted Queenie to wave Brexit through. Judges stopped Treesah and now MPs get to decide.
Cheers. so it is not going to happen then 
KovacsC wrote:
Cheers. so it is not going to happen then
It probably still will. Tories will be whipped and Labour MPs in Leave constituencies will probably vote for it.
This is what pisses me off. The referendum was non binding but no body has got the backbone to stand up and say "Guys, this is ridiculous. We are bit going to get a deal which puts us in any way in a better position. We must fight this as it is the wrong choice". Instead, report after report comes out saying what the negative effects could be and the only rebuttal to these thought out, reasoned, structured arguments is "The will of the people". Curry houses owners wanted toeave as the immigration changes touted would benefit them. This isn't a reason to do so. It's cheerfully acknowledged that the Leave campaign was bollocks, but this isn't a reason to not go ahead with it. It's sad, very sad. We should vote Scotland independent as soon as to save some of them. I miss Cavey.
Lonewolves wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
So what does this mean. I am finding it confusing.
Treesah wanted Queenie to wave Brexit through. Judges stopped Treesah and now MPs get to decide.
Nice!
I'm enjoying hearing people on the leave side not seeing this as a decision on UK law made by British judges.
On the more broader point, the argument that things guaranteed by statute cannot be removed by the use of the Royal Prerogative but has to be done by Parliament is right.
Kern wrote:
On the more broader point, the argument that things guaranteed by statute cannot be removed by the use of the Royal Prerogative but has to be done by Parliament is right.
Oh yes, totally
Kern wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
So what does this mean. I am finding it confusing.
Treesah wanted Queenie to wave Brexit through. Judges stopped Treesah and now MPs get to decide.
Nice!
I'm enjoying hearing people on the leave side not seeing this as a decision on UK law made by British judges.
On the more broader point, the argument that things guaranteed by statute cannot be removed by the use of the Royal Prerogative but has to be done by Parliament is right.
Thanks, I think i understand it now.
So how many appeals can happen before this is decided?
Odd how we have a referendum and commit to doing something which now appears to be illegal unless the lying, untrustworthy MP's who behaved so shabbily in the referendum now vote on what is best for the UK!
Odd how we have a referendum and commit to doing something which now appears to be illegal unless the lying, untrustworthy MP's who behaved so shabbily in the referendum now vote on what is best for the UK!
Lonewolves wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Cheers. so it is not going to happen then
It probably still will. Tories will be whipped and Labour MPs in Leave constituencies will probably vote for it.
This is pretty certainly the case. There is not the will in the commons to oppose it.
However, those screaming about unelected judges this morning I expect to have collective apoplexy when the unelected Lords get their hands on the appropriate legislation. I await this eagerly.
KovacsC wrote:
Quote:
On the more broader point, the argument that things guaranteed by statute cannot be removed by the use of the Royal Prerogative but has to be done by Parliament is right.
Thanks, I think i understand it now.
International relations and treaty making and breaking is a task for the executive (in this country, using the ancient powers held by Liz but used by the government). If making treaties creates obligations that have to be put into law, then they can only do that by Parliament. Thus, whilst the government can break any treaties it likes, if it removes obligations put into law, it can't do so on a whim. Which is probably just as well.
Cras wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Cheers. so it is not going to happen then
It probably still will. Tories will be whipped and Labour MPs in Leave constituencies will probably vote for it.
This is pretty certainly the case. There is not the will in the commons to oppose it.
However, those screaming about unelected judges this morning I expect to have collective apoplexy when the unelected Lords get their hands on the appropriate legislation. I await this eagerly.
Of course, were the Lords to throw the legislation out and the government doesn't Parliament Act it, it might get the hardline Tories interested in Lords reform.
asfish wrote:
So how many appeals can happen before this is decided?
Odd how we have a referendum and commit to doing something which now appears to be illegal unless the lying, untrustworthy MP's who behaved so shabbily in the referendum now vote on what is best for the UK!
Odd how we have a referendum and commit to doing something which now appears to be illegal unless the lying, untrustworthy MP's who behaved so shabbily in the referendum now vote on what is best for the UK!
No.
The referendum was non binding.
UK isn't committed any further than the big talk so far.
The judgement was on procedure, not the issue.
It will go to supreme court next.
Kern wrote:
Thus, whilst the government can break any treaties it likes, if it removes obligations put into law, it can't do so on a whim. Which is probably just as well.
Or indeed rights.
This is going to be so much fun!
The actions of Crazy Corbyn the pro-Brexit zealot today have not made me regret cancelling my Labour membership (well, trying to, anyway).
MaliA wrote:
asfish wrote:
So how many appeals can happen before this is decided?
Odd how we have a referendum and commit to doing something which now appears to be illegal unless the lying, untrustworthy MP's who behaved so shabbily in the referendum now vote on what is best for the UK!
Odd how we have a referendum and commit to doing something which now appears to be illegal unless the lying, untrustworthy MP's who behaved so shabbily in the referendum now vote on what is best for the UK!
No.
The referendum was non binding.
UK isn't committed any further than the big talk so far.
The judgement was on procedure, not the issue.
It will go to supreme court next.
So the Prime Minister could just say "Thanks for voting, but we are staying in the EU" ?
Precisely so, yes. Although there are political considerations to doing so (she'd be unlikely to do well in the next GE as a result).
This blog has good summary of the case:
Also, I'm unsurprisingly sickened by the Mail headline today. We ought to be proud of an impartial judiciary.
Quote:
It was about a question that has occasionally convulsed the nation since at least the seventeenth century: who rules Britain, Parliament or the Queen? In fact nobody contends that the Queen does so in person, but Her Government argued that the Prime Minister can do so by the use of Her prerogative. It was in fact a modern version of the Civil War, albeit conducted – in court at least – with courtesy and law reports rather than muskets and cannon balls.
Also, I'm unsurprisingly sickened by the Mail headline today. We ought to be proud of an impartial judiciary.
Kern wrote:
This blog has good summary of the case:
Also, I'm unsurprisingly sickened by the Mail headline today. We ought to be proud of an impartial judiciary.
Quote:
It was about a question that has occasionally convulsed the nation since at least the seventeenth century: who rules Britain, Parliament or the Queen? In fact nobody contends that the Queen does so in person, but Her Government argued that the Prime Minister can do so by the use of Her prerogative. It was in fact a modern version of the Civil War, albeit conducted – in court at least – with courtesy and law reports rather than muskets and cannon balls.
Also, I'm unsurprisingly sickened by the Mail headline today. We ought to be proud of an impartial judiciary.
I have seen that the sun headlines.. what is up with our press?
Kern wrote:
This blog has good summary of the case:
Also, I'm unsurprisingly sickened by the Mail headline today. We ought to be proud of an impartial judiciary.
Quote:
It was about a question that has occasionally convulsed the nation since at least the seventeenth century: who rules Britain, Parliament or the Queen? In fact nobody contends that the Queen does so in person, but Her Government argued that the Prime Minister can do so by the use of Her prerogative. It was in fact a modern version of the Civil War, albeit conducted – in court at least – with courtesy and law reports rather than muskets and cannon balls.
Also, I'm unsurprisingly sickened by the Mail headline today. We ought to be proud of an impartial judiciary.
That blog is superb.
It is, as is the Spinning Hugo one he refers to; I have started having a leaf through their back catalogues.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 1104116602
Quote:
Shame to waste Corbyn on a snap election, says May
THERESA May does not want a snap general election because it would be a waste of Jeremy Corbyn, she has confirmed.
The Conservative leader still has lots of policies she wants to pursue while she has an entirely ineffectual opposition and has no intention of rushing anything.
She said: “You don’t throw away your Get Out of Jail Free card at the first opportunity. You save it for when you really need it.
“And when it’s cast-iron bolted-on that you’ll win the next election at a walk, no matter what you do to the NHS or the public finances or whatever, then you take your time.
“The Brexit court thing is annoying – I have dinner plans for April 2019 I don’t want to change – but the last thing I need is the Labour party coming to their senses and getting in my way.
“I’ve got free licence to do whatever I want to Britain for the next nine years and I can’t do any of it without Jeremy. He’s not going anywhere until 2020.”
Corbyn said: “Thank Christ for that, I thought I was going to be out of a job.”
THERESA May does not want a snap general election because it would be a waste of Jeremy Corbyn, she has confirmed.
The Conservative leader still has lots of policies she wants to pursue while she has an entirely ineffectual opposition and has no intention of rushing anything.
She said: “You don’t throw away your Get Out of Jail Free card at the first opportunity. You save it for when you really need it.
“And when it’s cast-iron bolted-on that you’ll win the next election at a walk, no matter what you do to the NHS or the public finances or whatever, then you take your time.
“The Brexit court thing is annoying – I have dinner plans for April 2019 I don’t want to change – but the last thing I need is the Labour party coming to their senses and getting in my way.
“I’ve got free licence to do whatever I want to Britain for the next nine years and I can’t do any of it without Jeremy. He’s not going anywhere until 2020.”
Corbyn said: “Thank Christ for that, I thought I was going to be out of a job.”
I want to laugh, but I think I'm more likely to cry. Where the hell are the opposition? I'd like historians to some day mark this moment as the start of the Lib Dem fight back but hey, a boy can dream.
Still, a Tory Leaver has taken the Chiltern Hundreds due to 'artistic differences' with the government over the role of Parliament. Fair play to him.
Still, a Tory Leaver has taken the Chiltern Hundreds due to 'artistic differences' with the government over the role of Parliament. Fair play to him.
It's arrived!
'Prospect' magazine sent me an early Christmas card yesterday to encourage me to resubscribe (I will, it's a very good read - highly recommended if slightly technocratic). The cartoon was captioned 'Happy Brexmas', leading to that pun going straight onto my 'enough already' list.
Philip Davies majority just went up one in Shipley. I won't vote for Labour on account of the Article 50 stance so yeah there we go.
MaliA wrote:
Philip Davies majority just went up one in Shipley. I won't vote for Labour on account of the Article 50 stance so yeah there we go.
And listening to Today has really confirmed how useless Labour are.
It's surely a pickle for them though isn't it? I mean what are the numbers? Would they lose or gain more votes by opposing Brexit.
markg wrote:
It's surely a pickle for them though isn't it? I mean what are the numbers? Would they lose or gain more votes by opposing Brexit.
To say "we're not going to oppose an Article 50 vote" and then repeat mantra when asked "...that if the terms and conditions were really terrible what then?" then Christ I have no idea what to think or see or do. It is lamentable.
What's becoming clear from stuff I've read (eg Craig Oliver's book) is that people turned out to vote leave in June who hadn't voted for a long time. Labour's problem is if these people will now flock to UKIP, or stay at home disgruntled with the system come the next election. If the latter, then were Labour to run on schools and hospitals (and were credible on defence and the economy), they could be in with a chance, unless the EU becomes the most salient issue when everything is up for grabs. The Tories can always win on immigration, so no point playing on that field.
Still, if only all those people hadn't used pens, eh?
Still, if only all those people hadn't used pens, eh?
Well, the issue isn't that labour won't stand against it, it is the fact that they are doing so in violation of 1) their own principles, and 2) potentially to the disadvantage of the country.
They are risking the country's well being to pander to voters, but won't pander to voters to be a useful opposition - it is pointless and hypocritical.
They are risking the country's well being to pander to voters, but won't pander to voters to be a useful opposition - it is pointless and hypocritical.
And crucially, 52% really isn't that big a mandate (although I doubt that the SNP would not have wanted that in 2014). There's a good 48% of the country seeking leadership on this, and probably open to anyone standing up for them.
Bobbyaro wrote:
Well, the issue isn't that labour won't stand against it, it is the fact that they are doing so in violation of 1) their own principles, and 2) potentially to the disadvantage of the country.
They are risking the country's well being to pander to voters, but won't pander to voters to be a useful opposition - it is pointless and hypocritical.
They are risking the country's well being to pander to voters, but won't pander to voters to be a useful opposition - it is pointless and hypocritical.
:This:
That reminds me. My MP hasn't replied, or even acknowledged, a message I sent her in mid-October over all of this. Must chase (being ghosted is cruel).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw
Quote:
Brexit: CPS considers complaint that leave campaigns misled voters
Case argues Vote Leave and Leave.EU made ‘knowingly misleading’ assertions of fact, including claim EU cost UK £350m a week
Case argues Vote Leave and Leave.EU made ‘knowingly misleading’ assertions of fact, including claim EU cost UK £350m a week
We should have done a US election sweepstake based on electoral college votes, with a popular vote % tiebreaker.
Sadly, I was too lazy to do one.
Sadly, I was too lazy to do one.
You've still got like six hours
Cras wrote:
You've still got like six hours
Meh.
FOR THE PRIDE OF BEING AWESOME!
I predict:
Clinton 307
Trump 231
Clinton % 48.5
Trump % 45.0
I was going to start a live chat thread a bit later, if that helps.
Clinton 258
Trump 280
Clinton % 45
Trump % 47
Trump 280
Clinton % 45
Trump % 47
Clinton 272
Trump 268
Clinton 45.2
Trump 42.1
Trump 268
Clinton 45.2
Trump 42.1
Obligatory 'Animaniacs'
Clinton - 321; 48.8%
Trump - 206 217; 46.5%
House of Representatives: Republicans 257 237; Democrats 198
Senate (including the 2/3rds of seats not up for grabs this year): Democrats 52; Republicans 48
Edited because I can't count.
Trump - 206 217; 46.5%
House of Representatives: Republicans 257 237; Democrats 198
Senate (including the 2/3rds of seats not up for grabs this year): Democrats 52; Republicans 48
Edited because I can't count.