Brexit, for once some facts.

[OxygenJames]

He needs another fixer, this time, it can't be A. Banks.

I wonder if D. Cummings would take on the job again? He of course cleverly made sure Farage and especially banks were kept way out on the sidelines.

Banks is a total liability. Farage could be brought in depending on where we are in the battle. But would Cummings want the job - I fear not.

And without him..... well who knows.

 

[flecc]

The problem is with the ERG. They want Canada+, that means the future FTA will have to keep the backstop.

Indeed, Canada + is impossible since it completely separates Northern Ireland which cannot be a part of that.
.

 

[OxygenJames]

They've actually got some suitable younger talent on the back benches. The fact that they are unknown doesn't really matter, Blair was an unknown when he suddenly popped up, as was David Miliband who was warmly received by the public, who were then very disappointed when the unions chose his brother Ed instead. And of course Macron was a successful newcomer in France.

If the Tories have the courage to choose an unknown it could pay off better than any of the main contenders who many of the public are sick of and hostile to.
.

Yes I would tend to agree with that Flecc. They need to bring in somebody untainted by all this. The public likes to think its leaders are pure white and innocent.

A good opposition researcher earning their salary should however be able to dig up some dirt on no matter who they pick (voting history etc).

We're all flawed. We pretend we're not but we know we are. There are no perfect people. You could say what about Mother Theresa - oh you mean the woman who through her opposition to birth control condemned millions of poor women to live in servitude. Pick anybody. There's dirt to be found. You just gotta keep digging till you find some.

This is where I think your idea OG walks into trouble. Yes this lot are terrible - but are you suggesting others would be better? Of course you are. OK. Who? How are you going to pick them? We got this lot through a step by step sequence going back since time began. You want them all thrown out? Sure. But what makes you think they will be any different once they've grasped power for long enough?

 

[OxygenJames]

Tim Worstall musing this morning on Twitter:

"Politics is in itself varied sets of people shouting at each other about what is the truth. The world should be this or that way, the world is in fact this or that in this manner.

There is no agreement upon what is the objective truth because that’s why we’ve got politics in the first place.

There is no politics of gravity while there is concerning the correct level of inequality. Simply because there’s no agreed truth on that second."

 

[OxygenJames]

One more interesting piece from my Twitter feed this morning:

President de Gaulle once said that:

“the most common error of all statesmen is to believe firmly that there exists at any one moment a solution to every problem. There are in some periods problems to which no solution exists.”

He was speaking in 1958 about ending the war in Algeria, a conflict so violent and complicated as to make Brexit seem clear cut by comparison.

 

[anotherkiwi]

They've actually got some suitable younger talent on the back benches. The fact that they are unknown doesn't really matter, Blair was an unknown when he suddenly popped up, as was David Miliband who was warmly received by the public, who were then very disappointed when the unions chose his brother Ed instead. And of course Macron was a successful newcomer in France.

If the Tories have the courage to choose an unknown it could pay off better than any of the main contenders who many of the public are sick of and hostile to.
.

Unfortunately Macron did a short stint in the preceding government, the one that brought in all the neo-liberal austerity and cut social spending - led by a "socialist". That and having a career in an investment bank before entering politics has tarnished his image for the unwashed masses.

My personal comment when Holland was elected was a loud groan and "Oh not him of all people!". I was not deceived, it took him all of two weeks to start womanising and turning his coat on socialism.

 

[flecc]

Yes I would tend to agree with that Flecc. They need to bring in somebody untainted by all this. The public likes to think its leaders are pure white and innocent.

A good opposition researcher earning their salary should however be able to dig up some dirt on no matter who they pick (voting history etc).

We're all flawed. We pretend we're not but we know we are. There are no perfect people. You could say what about Mother Theresa - oh you mean the woman who through her opposition to birth control condemned millions of poor women to live in servitude. Pick anybody. There's dirt to be found. You just gotta keep digging till you find some.

That's it then. A coup and dictatorship it has to be.
.

 

[50Hertz]

except in an unforeseen situation.
who else would do better?

There is a homeless bloke called Ray who sometimes hangs around Tower Bridge, he could have a go.

 

[flecc]

Unfortunately Macron did a short stint in the preceding government, the one that brought in all the neo-liberal austerity and cut social spending - led by a "socialist". That and having a career in an investment bank before entering politics has tarnished his image for the unwashed masses.

That's now, but he came in with a new image and was extraordinarily successful, making a new party from nothing.

Newcomers to contesting the top position can do this when the public are sick of the old gang.
.

 

[gray198]

They've actually got some suitable younger talent on the back benches. The fact that they are unknown doesn't really matter, Blair was an unknown when he suddenly popped up, as was David Miliband who was warmly received by the public, who were then very disappointed when the unions chose his brother Ed instead. And of course Macron was a successful newcomer in France.

If the Tories have the courage to choose an unknown it could pay off better than any of the main contenders who many of the public are sick of and hostile to.
.

Johnny Mercer

 

[Danidl]

James, no motion in parliament can ever overturn the law,

only statute can overturn statute


View attachment 28624

Parliament voted for a law made through a structured process that makes us leave on the 29th

The Summary of the ECJ ruling as reported in the Irish Times of 10 December....

The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union delivered an unusually “expedited” decision on a question forwarded by a Scottish court at the request of a number of MSPs, MPs and MEPs. They sought to challenge the idea that the Article 50 application by the UK was irrevocable unless supported by all the remaining member states.

In Monday’s judgment, the full court has ruled that when a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that member state is free to revoke unilaterally that notification.

That possibility exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that member state has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, and any possible extension, has not expired.
...


To subject the right to revoke to an application to leave to the unanimous approval of the European Council would transform a unilateral sovereign right into a conditional right and would be incompatible with the principle that a member state cannot be forced to leave the EU against its will, the court ruled.

.. my reading of this is that provided the UK follows its own rules of Acts, voting ,etc. It can extend its membership in two year increments or revoke the decision to withdraw, .. irrespective of the consent of the other member states. . They could send in a decision to revoke on 28th. march , and then send in a new article 50 on 2nd April.giving a new termination date.. It would be bringing "Perfidious Albion " to new heights.
Since the question was not asked,it was not answered, so getting an extension of less than two years ,requires the unanimous consent of 27 at the council of Europe. ..the Prime ministers of the EU states. So the status quo ante remains .They would be reluctant to give an extension, even at Mr Junkers urging , if the only result is kicking the can down the road.

 

[flecc]

.. my reading of this is that provided the UK follows its own rules of Acts, voting ,etc. It can extend its membership in two year increments or revoke the decision to withdraw, .. irrespective of the consent of the other member states. . They could send in a decision to revoke on 28th. march , and then send in a new article 50 on 2nd April.giving a new termination date.. It would be bringing "Perfidious Albion " to new heights.
Since the question was not asked,it was not answered, so getting an extension of less than two years ,requires the unanimous consent of 27 at the council of Europe. ..the Prime ministers of the EU states. So the status quo ante remains .They would be reluctant to give an extension, even at Mr Junkers urging , if the only result is kicking the can down the road.

We were originally informed that article 50 was final and absolute, but when that became inconvenient, the ECJ magically found grounds that it could be revoked.

If it becomes necessary a way will always be found, regardless of the technicalities of the law, since in politics expediency always rules. I've long since lost count of the number of times an attorney general has stood in the House of Commons and pulled a legal rabbit of a hat when it was required, a skill the ECJ seems to also have.
.

 

[Woosh]

We were originally informed that article 50 was final and absolute, but when that became inconvenient, the ECJ magically found grounds that it could be revoked.

by the conservatives who were obviously motivated to give that reply.
The ECJ was never asked before.

 

[gray198]

UKIP polled 27.5% in 2014.
I doubt that they would do as well as they did.
10%, 8 MEPs and not N. Farage (if A50 is delayed) would be my guess.

unfortunately UKIP have made themselves not worth wasting a vote on so you are right there, but there are many in other parties opposed to membership. I don't know how they are selected so can't say anymore

 

[gray198]

We were originally informed that article 50 was final and absolute, but when that became inconvenient, the ECJ magically found grounds that it could be revoked.

If it becomes necessary a way will always be found, regardless of the technicalities of the law, since in politics expediency always rules. I've long since lost count of the number of times an attorney general has stood in the House of Commons and pulled a legal rabbit of a hat when it was required, a skill the ECJ seems to also have.
.

very convenient. People keep saying they are a rules based organisation. But only when it suits them

 

[Woosh]

but there are many in other parties opposed to membership. I don't know how they are selected so can't say anymore

only the conservatives support brexit.
Labour is predominently pro remain.

 

[flecc]

very convenient. People keep saying they are a rules based organisation. But only when it suits them

No different from us. Just look at the conduct of Brexit.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

That's now, but he came in with a new image and was extraordinarily successful, making a new party from nothing.

Newcomers to contesting the top position can do this when the public are sick of the old gang.
.

Remember my warning way back in the early days of the thread that the time would come that events would be in turmoil and all it would take then was for some rabble rouser to take the reins of power?
The result would be mayhem in the streets.

 

[oldgroaner]

very convenient. People keep saying they are a rules based organisation. But only when it suits them

The difference is the rules we are supposedly fighting against are one we agreed into existence, so we have no excuse for failing to comprehend the mess we are in.

 

[Woosh]

The difference is the rules we are supposedly fighting against are one we agreed into existence, so we have no excuse for failing to comprehend the mess we are in.

the root of the mess is the depression in 2008.
Housing and stock market boom followed by burst followed by cuts in public services followed by schools, police, hospitals, welfare being put back for a couple of decades.

I blame Gordon Brown. He was an inept chancellor.