The problem is, everybody knows what the legal advice is. It is just that publishing it will basically show that the EU will decide when the backstop ends and it being in writing makes it more powerful.
Maybe, maybe not. May clearly didn't want it published despite the undertaking in November that it would be.
There must be something pretty crazy contained in the full legal advice if the government would rather risk (and lose) a contempt of parliament vote. Will be interesting to see what emerges tomorrow.
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
I would back another referendum if, subsequent to June 23rd I found out that the country was clearly going to be poorer in many ways (not just financially) as a result of remaining. That I had been lied to, and that many other people I had met had actually believed the lies and voted to remain as a result. That the remain campaign had actually broken electoral rules. If I found out that a great many of the people telling those lies had positioned themselves to be better of financially as a result of a vote to remain, knowing that the majority would be worse off, I would be angry at them and myself for not seeing through the bluff.
Yes - If the roles were reversed, I would want to see things played out properly.
Good quote from Isaac Asimov that rings even more true today than when he said it:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Our sopposedly balanced broadcast media has been infected with this, the Asimov quote, big time. Especially the BBC. The broadcast media have an important role in our democracy but they have badly let us down over Brexit. They have repeatedly, day after day, allowed outrageous falsehoods to be spouted by Brexiteers without any push back or basic fact checking.
Which is why I think none of the major Brexiteers or high ranking Govt ministers engage with C4 news, they seem to be the only ones pushing back and now they’re avoided.
I'm not a BBC apologist, but for me they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Just a week or so ago one of the BBC fact checkers was accused by a former cabinet minister (Peter Lilley I think) of debating opinion rather than fact checking.
The answer is to use as many sources as possible to attempt to identify some semblance of truth, but regrettably very few people do and base their opinions on their usual sources - be that the BBC, Channel 4, Sky News (sic), or print media e.g. Mail versus Guardian. The truth, as in most cases, is somewhere in the middle but polarisation of views is now the norm.
I don’t disagree with you there Bob, but I do find it fascinating that May and her ministers run scared of C4 and are allowed to get away with it.
C4 News gave Tim (Wetherspoon) Martin pretty free rein this evening to spout his Brexit propaganda on a tour of his pubs. Not a lot of balance provided just Martin echoing pro Brexit tabloid sound bites. Who needs Farage with this guy around!
When it isn't published May can pfaff around what it actually meant, but when it is, she can't. She has been trying to talk people round for the whole of this farce and publishing makes it harder, although it was pretty impossible anyway in my opinion.
Just going back to JRM disparaging remarks about Mark Carney in order to undermine the report that was published the other day from the BoE. This is Carney describing how they drew their conclusions from the analysis
It's been a very good day for democracy for we no longer live under the threat of a default "No Deal" when the WA is defeated. Thanks to the Art' 50 ruling, the House has control over revoking Article 50 if required.
Might be wrong on this but without this threat both the ERG and May are nowhere?
The DUP have voted against the Government so as to reveal the full legal opinion since much of that must surely relate to the back stop and the Irish border. They have exercised their right to represent their constituency and perspective. But this doesn't really change the calculation for next Tuesday and the aftermath - the DUP are not interested in blocking Brexit, just preventing a border evolving in the Irish Sea.
The Art.50 ruling changes the angles for the 11th considerably for May can no longer bluff that it's her WA[y] or No Deal way! The default actually becomes No Brexit for that is the emergency backstop which might now be applied by the House if no solution is found by say end February.
Today's defeats demonstrate that 10 defections by the DUP are sufficient to defeat the government. And there are at least 20 Tory Remainers who favour a Norway style outcome, rather than this xenophobic focus on freedom of movement. The trick is to ensure that the people have a vote on the WA vs No Brexit. Surely the electorate cannot vote on the absence of something, so "No Deal" needs to be binned, not least because of the damage to the UK economy.
There wasn’t actually an Article 50 ruling today. I think a senior judge provided his opinion, which is normally followed by the court, but the final ruling is yet to be delivered.
I agree though that the prospect of the hopefully imminent Article 50 ruling from the (much maligned) ECJ and the Dominic Grieve amendment create an interesting combination.
Because of my role as a little ray of sunshine, I would caution against reading too much into today's events, other than the vote on the Government being in contempt.
Parliament would struggle, unless there is cross party willingness to bring forward a confidence vote and potential General Election, to compel the Government to act in accordance with its desires (partly because it will prove difficult to agree on a consensus about what Parliament wants). There is reasonable consensus about what is not wanted, but precious little beyond that, and very little time to come to an agreed conclusion.
While today's news about the, likely, approach of CJEU towards Article 50 (which I still think seems odd, given the greater hurdle associated with the lesser action of merely extending it) is positive, for the likes of me, I would not assume that that means that HMG would revoke it, even in the face of no deal.
The Conservative Party, as the governing (allegedly) Party can manage the business in the House of Commons, less so in the Lords, to slow down any Opposition or Private Members' Bills - and there is a very good chance such Bills would be unlikely to command majority support in any case.
I can foresee an element of paralysis, with various options being easily blocked, but little agreement on a way forward.
I read yesterday somewhere that Blair might see this as an opportunity to get back into politics. Is he like your version of Hillary? Everyone here, including most Democrats, wish she would just go away.
I read yesterday somewhere that Blair might see this as an opportunity to get back into politics. Is he like your version of Hillary? Everyone here, including most Democrats, wish she would just go away.
I’m genuinely interested - this is not a dig - what is your primary source of information on British politics?
For the record, if by “get back into politics” you mean become an MP again, I can’t see that happening. If you mean stick his beak in every 5 minutes then I can assure you he never really left.
I read yesterday somewhere that Blair might see this as an opportunity to get back into politics. Is he like your version of Hillary? Everyone here, including most Democrats, wish she would just go away.
I’m genuinely interested - this is not a dig - what is your primary source of information on British politics?
For the record, if by “get back into politics” you mean become an MP again, I can’t see that happening. If you mean stick his beak in every 5 minutes then I can assure you he never really left.
I was able to hunt it down, it was on your "Channel 4"??? Some were talking that he wants to debate... someone over Brexit and they wondered if he was using it as a platform to get back into politics. I have no clue who runs Channel 4.
As for myself, I would say that British news comes to me more than me hunting down news of Britain. But the main British sources of news I read would probably be split between The Economist, BBC and The Guardian. Sometimes Daily Mail has photographs of US events that blow away anything we can find here. For example, pictures of the fires here were better than anything I could find in any US news website.
I read yesterday somewhere that Blair might see this as an opportunity to get back into politics. Is he like your version of Hillary? Everyone here, including most Democrats, wish she would just go away.
I don't think there is a place for him on the front line of UK politics despite him talking a lot of sense, he carries too much baggage from Iraq. Maybe if we are saved from Brexit that his politics will be better received in the EU
Difficulty is that there is still a large rump of ‘finger in the ear’ brextremists who are never going to listen to reason. They can easily be whipped up and played by simplistic tabloid headlines and the propaganda they see in their local Wetherspoons. All very sad and devastating for the country as a whole.
I think the sale and scrapping of Boris Johnson’s water cannon may have been a bit hasty 🙁
The problem is the Government totally messed up negotations. Instead of trying to appease the ERG, who were never going to be appeased, they should have focused on they Labour Party who were following a pro Brexit stance. Yes, this would have been problematic for May within her party but it would also have created difficulties for Labour. But they were the votes that she had a chance of getting. And if anybody thinks a good deal had any chance when the government spent more time negotiating with itself than the EU, well they are deluding themselves.
Geordie Greig recent new Editor of the Daily Mail, fanatical Remainer. So no point Guardian readers digging out the Daily Mail! Changed their stance completely
Geordie Greig recent new Editor of the Daily Mail, fanatical Remainer. So no point Guardian readers digging out the Daily Mail! Changed their stance completely
Well let’s see how that goes before we get excited. Cautiously optimistic though.
Geordie Greig recent new Editor of the Daily Mail, fanatical Remainer. So no point Guardian readers digging out the Daily Mail! Changed their stance completely
I think you will find that Geordie will still have to throw his readership a few pieces of ‘red meat’ or they will switch to the Daily Express for their jingoism fix. The Express is also 10p cheaper than the Mail or so it claims.
I read yesterday somewhere that Blair might see this as an opportunity to get back into politics. Is he like your version of Hillary? Everyone here, including most Democrats, wish she would just go away.
I’m genuinely interested - this is not a dig - what is your primary source of information on British politics?
For the record, if by “get back into politics” you mean become an MP again, I can’t see that happening. If you mean stick his beak in every 5 minutes then I can assure you he never really left.
I was able to hunt it down, it was on your "Channel 4"??? Some were talking that he wants to debate... someone over Brexit and they wondered if he was using it as a platform to get back into politics. I have no clue who runs Channel 4.
As for myself, I would say that British news comes to me more than me hunting down news of Britain. But the main British sources of news I read would probably be split between The Economist, BBC and The Guardian. Sometimes Daily Mail has photographs of US events that blow away anything we can find here. For example, pictures of the fires here were better than anything I could find in any US news website.
...you forgot the twitter updates you get from the alt-right one in the Pussycat Dolls.
When it isn't published May can pfaff around what it actually meant, but when it is, she can't. She has been trying to talk people round for the whole of this farce and publishing makes it harder, although it was pretty impossible anyway in my opinion.
Legal advice published - haven’t read it (and I’m not going to) but looking at some of the responses from journos on Twitter and it sounds as though the wording is pretty stark on Northern Ireland and will torpedo May’s deal once and for all.
Laura Kuenssberg has said that the full legal advice is complete dynamite as far as the WA is concerned. No chance that this will set sail next Tuesday without being sunk. Labour will call a vote of no confidence which will be defeated and then..................
You can see where posters on here get the usual idiotic tropes of "elites" and "democracy is dead" from. This MP, member of the ruling party, openly whinging about elites and the end of democracy. It really does beggar belief. No wonder some voters are so hopelessly ill-informed when we elect people either so stupid or so dishonest they spout this claptrap without a hint of irony.
You can see where posters on here get the usual idiotic tropes of "elites" and "democracy is dead" from. This MP, member of the ruling party, openly whinging about elites and the end of democracy. It really does beggar belief. No wonder some voters are so hopelessly ill-informed when we elect people either so stupid or so dishonest they spout this claptrap without a hint of irony.
And the re-use of her words on Twitter by Leave.EU would point to deeper and more worrying influence.
You have to wonder how May thought she'd have ever got away with not releasing this.
If it wasn't.ao tragic, it would be laughable.
From what I've read and heard from those who have worked with and under May over the years, she is an extremely stubborn person who doesn't take No for an answer and has an attitude of "my way or the highway", as well as never accepting that she could ever be wrong.
It is why comparisons were drawn early into her leadership with Thatcher, who was of a similar temperament in such regards.
Where the comparison falls short is that Thatcher was a political operator. She knew how to play the game, pick her battles and knew when to compromise. She would work with potential deadlocks behind the scenes and surrounded herself with allies. Ministers under her all said that behind the scenes she was quite a warm and personable person who would take an interest in their personal lives, asking how their wives and daughters were getting on and offering warm sympathy and support to personal circumstances.
May reportedly has none of these qualities. She has no reliable allies and certainly no friends in the party. She refuses to compromise and has zero interest in the input of her fellow Tories, hence why the few remaining people who work closely with her are just a gaggle of Yes Men. She has zero political intrigue or aptitude. The qualities that made her a formidable Home Secretary make her an extremely poor PM.
So I imagine to May, it wasn't that she thought it was a case of getting away with not releasing the full advice. To her, there was zero point in doing so because she was not going to change her mind regardless of the response to its release and releasing it would only get in the way of her plan, which to her is the only way forward and one she refuses to budge on.
You have to wonder how May thought she'd have ever got away with not releasing this.
If it wasn't.ao tragic, it would be laughable.
From what I've read and heard from those who have worked with and under May over the years, she is an extremely stubborn person who doesn't take No for an answer and has an attitude of "my way or the highway", as well as never accepting that she could ever be wrong.
It is why comparisons were drawn early into her leadership with Thatcher, who was of a similar temperament in such regards.
Where the comparison falls short is that Thatcher was a political operator. She knew how to play the game, pick her battles and knew when to compromise. She would work with potential deadlocks behind the scenes and surrounded herself with allies. Ministers under her all said that behind the scenes she was quite a warm and personable person who would take an interest in their personal lives, asking how their wives and daughters were getting on and offering warm sympathy and support to personal circumstances.
May reportedly has none of these qualities. She has no reliable allies and certainly no friends in the party. She refuses to compromise and has zero interest in the input of her fellow Tories, hence why the few remaining people who work closely with her are just a gaggle of Yes Men. She has zero political intrigue or aptitude. The qualities that made her a formidable Home Secretary make her an extremely poor PM.
So I imagine to May, it wasn't that she thought it was a case of getting away with not releasing the full advice. To her, there was zero point in doing so because she was not going to change her mind regardless of the response to its release and releasing it would only get in the way of her plan, which to her is the only way forward and one she refuses to budge on.
its not her plan, it's the ONLY plan, the only one that the EU would agree to and not simultaneously severely cripple the country for generations. Withholding the legal advice was an attempt to make it look like it was her deal and good for the country. Neither is true.
You have to wonder how May thought she'd have ever got away with not releasing this.
If it wasn't.ao tragic, it would be laughable.
From what I've read and heard from those who have worked with and under May over the years, she is an extremely stubborn person who doesn't take No for an answer and has an attitude of "my way or the highway", as well as never accepting that she could ever be wrong.
It is why comparisons were drawn early into her leadership with Thatcher, who was of a similar temperament in such regards.
Where the comparison falls short is that Thatcher was a political operator. She knew how to play the game, pick her battles and knew when to compromise. She would work with potential deadlocks behind the scenes and surrounded herself with allies. Ministers under her all said that behind the scenes she was quite a warm and personable person who would take an interest in their personal lives, asking how their wives and daughters were getting on and offering warm sympathy and support to personal circumstances.
May reportedly has none of these qualities. She has no reliable allies and certainly no friends in the party. She refuses to compromise and has zero interest in the input of her fellow Tories, hence why the few remaining people who work closely with her are just a gaggle of Yes Men. She has zero political intrigue or aptitude. The qualities that made her a formidable Home Secretary make her an extremely poor PM.
So I imagine to May, it wasn't that she thought it was a case of getting away with not releasing the full advice. To her, there was zero point in doing so because she was not going to change her mind regardless of the response to its release and releasing it would only get in the way of her plan, which to her is the only way forward and one she refuses to budge on.
its not her plan, it's the ONLY plan, the only one that the EU would agree to and not simultaneously severely cripple the country for generations. Withholding the legal advice was an attempt to make it look like it was her deal and good for the country. Neither is true.
It was HER plan because it was the only plan the EU would agree to that would adhere to the bizarre array of red lines she insisted on, despite those red lines directly contradicting what was promised to voters by the Leave campaign. The red lines are May's to own.
Comments
Parliament would struggle, unless there is cross party willingness to bring forward a confidence vote and potential General Election, to compel the Government to act in accordance with its desires (partly because it will prove difficult to agree on a consensus about what Parliament wants). There is reasonable consensus about what is not wanted, but precious little beyond that, and very little time to come to an agreed conclusion.
While today's news about the, likely, approach of CJEU towards Article 50 (which I still think seems odd, given the greater hurdle associated with the lesser action of merely extending it) is positive, for the likes of me, I would not assume that that means that HMG would revoke it, even in the face of no deal.
The Conservative Party, as the governing (allegedly) Party can manage the business in the House of Commons, less so in the Lords, to slow down any Opposition or Private Members' Bills - and there is a very good chance such Bills would be unlikely to command majority support in any case.
I can foresee an element of paralysis, with various options being easily blocked, but little agreement on a way forward.
For the record, if by “get back into politics” you mean become an MP again, I can’t see that happening. If you mean stick his beak in every 5 minutes then I can assure you he never really left.
As for myself, I would say that British news comes to me more than me hunting down news of Britain. But the main British sources of news I read would probably be split between The Economist, BBC and The Guardian. Sometimes Daily Mail has photographs of US events that blow away anything we can find here. For example, pictures of the fires here were better than anything I could find in any US news website.
I think the sale and scrapping of Boris Johnson’s water cannon may have been a bit hasty 🙁
So no point Guardian readers digging out the Daily Mail!
Changed their stance completely
If anyone can be arsed to read it, it’s here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/761852/05_December-_EU_Exit_Attorney_General_s_legal_advice_to_Cabinet_on_the_Withdrawal_Agreement_and_the_Protocol_on_Ireland-Northern_Ireland.pdf
You can see where posters on here get the usual idiotic tropes of "elites" and "democracy is dead" from. This MP, member of the ruling party, openly whinging about elites and the end of democracy. It really does beggar belief. No wonder some voters are so hopelessly ill-informed when we elect people either so stupid or so dishonest they spout this claptrap without a hint of irony.
If it wasn't.ao tragic, it would be laughable.
It is why comparisons were drawn early into her leadership with Thatcher, who was of a similar temperament in such regards.
Where the comparison falls short is that Thatcher was a political operator. She knew how to play the game, pick her battles and knew when to compromise. She would work with potential deadlocks behind the scenes and surrounded herself with allies. Ministers under her all said that behind the scenes she was quite a warm and personable person who would take an interest in their personal lives, asking how their wives and daughters were getting on and offering warm sympathy and support to personal circumstances.
May reportedly has none of these qualities. She has no reliable allies and certainly no friends in the party. She refuses to compromise and has zero interest in the input of her fellow Tories, hence why the few remaining people who work closely with her are just a gaggle of Yes Men. She has zero political intrigue or aptitude. The qualities that made her a formidable Home Secretary make her an extremely poor PM.
So I imagine to May, it wasn't that she thought it was a case of getting away with not releasing the full advice. To her, there was zero point in doing so because she was not going to change her mind regardless of the response to its release and releasing it would only get in the way of her plan, which to her is the only way forward and one she refuses to budge on.