FlyTheNest

https://trend.network/2016/08/24/senior ... zjhVbsVe5I

Senior members of Ukip have accused the party’s only MP of helping the Conservatives defeat Nigel Farage in South Thanet in the general election last year, according to Ukip’s main donor, Arron Banks.

edit: alternative source, didn't realise it was from Guardian, yesterday. sorry if it had already been seen.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... uth-thanet

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.politico.eu/article/tory-dre ... servative/

The boldest option on the table — and that favored by the hardliners — is for an immediate snap Brexit, dubbed “unilateral continuity” by Tory MPs. Under this proposal the U.K. simply informs Brussels that it has left the EU and does not impose trade tariffs unless the rest of the EU does so first.
The radical plan, which veteran Euroskeptics believe is being studied seriously in Whitehall, would see May trigger Article 50 and then pass an act of parliament to annul the 1972 European Communities Act, unilaterally taking the U.K. out of the EU.
Brussels insiders dismiss the plan, insisting that it is illegal and would see the EU taking Britain to court.

The 'cunning plan'.

Here's my latest tantalising offer from the Trump camp -

Would you clear your schedule if I could treat you to dinner?

For a limited time, I’m offering supporters the chance to meet me on the campaign trail for dinner.

Terrible visions of The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover now.

(When combined with the naked Trump from earlier in the week)

JonnyT1234 wrote:Terrible visions of The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover now.

Yes. It makes the Camerons' country suppers seem almost alluring by comparison.

Not much in the way of sweetmeats though.

PorFavor wrote:

JonnyT1234 wrote:Terrible visions of The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover now.

Yes. It makes the Camerons' country suppers seem almost alluring by comparison.

Well... Rubber is difficult to cut.

And whatever you do, do not have any of the apple.

http://www.themideastbeast.com/wake-bur ... s-speedos/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



In Wake of Burkini Ban, Muslim Women Demand Criminalization of Fat White Men in Speedos

Naked Trump is safe.

tinybgoat wrote:edit: alternative source, didn't realise it was from Guardian, yesterday. sorry if it had already been seen.

Seen but not posted by me. I'm finding the Labour Party shenanigans tedious enough that those of another group do not interest me in the slightest. Whatever the outcome at least the next leader of Labour will not be as awful as anything standing for UKIP.

HindleA wrote:https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... nly+macro)


mainly macro

Why Corbyn’s Brexit campaign matters

While the drop in the value of Sterling and the negative consequences that follow it might be "obvious" to someone who has an understanding of such things it is not at all obvious to someone who doesn't. And, unfortunately, the average British voter has an understanding of economics that lies somewhere between a negative value below zero and woeful. Which is why successive governments manage to sell the "national economies with massive GDP and sovereign currencies are exactly like your household finances" myth.

It's made further irrelevant by those who were pushing for exit played it down before the vote or even claimed it would be beneficial (cheaper exports). Of course, that might benefit some manufacturers, but the increased costs of imports have a negative effect on most people who aren't manufacturers.

And post vote it's presented by the kippers and similar exit wide-eyed optimists as something that only affects very wealthy people and currency speculators, so don't worry your little head about it. And the FTSE 100 is doing very well, so what's the problem? Pointing out that the rise in the FTSE reflects the value of non-UK/Sterling based companies going up (in number of pounds sterling) because the pound plummeted and is anything but good for said exit voters tends to attract blank stares as a response (or pointing at squirrels and throwing abuse if it's a kipper).

As for quoting Jacques, the man who thought the "left" answer to Thatcherism was "the left" becoming more Thatcherite, I thought that busted flush lost all relevance to anything years ago.

JonnyT1234 wrote:(When combined with the naked Trump from earlier in the week)

Please. Don't go there. Just don't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 06876.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Owen's Brexit pledge. Any views on whether it's a goer or not?

TR'sGhost wrote:

JonnyT1234 wrote:(When combined with the naked Trump from earlier in the week)

Please. Don't go there. Just don't.

Precisely.

JonnyT1234 wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.politico.eu/article/tory-dre ... servative/

The boldest option on the table — and that favored by the hardliners — is for an immediate snap Brexit, dubbed “unilateral continuity” by Tory MPs. Under this proposal the U.K. simply informs Brussels that it has left the EU and does not impose trade tariffs unless the rest of the EU does so first.
The radical plan, which veteran Euroskeptics believe is being studied seriously in Whitehall, would see May trigger Article 50 and then pass an act of parliament to annul the 1972 European Communities Act, unilaterally taking the U.K. out of the EU.
Brussels insiders dismiss the plan, insisting that it is illegal and would see the EU taking Britain to court.

The 'cunning plan'.

"Veteran Eurosceptics" have been known to claim immigrants cause traffic jams and make them late for meetings.

"Veteran Eurosceptics" have been known to get what they said for years was the thing they wanted most of all in the world then, on finally getting it, run away while back-peddling on every promise or assurance they made.

"Veteran Eurosceptics", apart from a few who are mostly on the left, are probably not flavour of the month in Whitehall or No.10 at the moment.

I hope the plan is indeed being "studied", so ministers can be advised that implementing it would be a very courageous thing to do indeed. The chaos it would cause would damage the UK and sour relationships with the rest of Europe for the foreseeable future.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resour ... /education" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
UK spend on education 1953-2014

the spending as a share of national income is particularly telling

TR'sGhost wrote:

JonnyT1234 wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.politico.eu/article/tory-dre ... servative/

The 'cunning plan'.

"Veteran Eurosceptics" have been known to claim immigrants cause traffic jams and make them late for meetings.

"Veteran Eurosceptics" have been known to get what they said for years was the thing they wanted most of all in the world then, on finally getting it, run away while back-peddling on every promise or assurance they made.

"Veteran Eurosceptics", apart from a few who are mostly on the left, are probably not flavour of the month in Whitehall or No.10 at the moment.

I hope the plan is indeed being "studied", so ministers can be advised that implementing it would be a very courageous thing to do indeed. The chaos it would cause would damage the UK and sour relationships with the rest of Europe for the foreseeable future.

"...then pass an act of parliament to annul the 1972 European Communities Act"

I know it's uncertain whether parliament would need to be involved in article 50, but wouldn't that require a vote, and be more contentious due to questionable legality & stupidity?

tinybgoat wrote:
"...then pass an act of parliament to annul the 1972 European Communities Act"

I know it's uncertain whether parliament would need to be involved in article 50, but wouldn't that require a vote, and be more contentious due to questionable legality & stupidity?

It would indeed require a Bill, which would need to go through the usual procedures. Unless Parliament (or the Commons at least) voted to give it special fast-track treatment. Which can be done. In theory a Bill can be presented to the Commons in the morning, go through a fast process and be deposited on the Queen's desk for the official signature in the same day.

In practice, outside a real, genuine national emergency that needs an immediate response I think things would be more difficult than that. Whether such a Bill would get a parliamentary majority I have no idea. The Remain wing of all parties would be faced with slapping down the referendum majority and the subsequent political problems that would cause them and most of us. So it might even get approved.

Though repealing that particular Act might cause all kinds of problems with all kinds of legislation passed since then as well. I suppose a catch-all clause along the lines of "this also repeals any legislation that involves any agreements with the EU concerning anything at all, and any legislation that implements EU Directives, policy or requirements" might be inserted. Or something more complex, but there'd need to be an awful lot of care in the drafting and I suspect the courts could be kept quite busy afterwards deciding what the UK's law now actually is.

TR'sGhost wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:
"...then pass an act of parliament to annul the 1972 European Communities Act"

I know it's uncertain whether parliament would need to be involved in article 50, but wouldn't that require a vote, and be more contentious due to questionable legality & stupidity?

It would indeed require a Bill, which would need to go through the usual procedures. Unless Parliament (or the Commons at least) voted to give it special fast-track treatment. Which can be done. In theory a Bill can be presented to the Commons in the morning, go through a fast process and be deposited on the Queen's desk for the official signature in the same day.

In practice, outside a real, genuine national emergency that needs an immediate response I think things would be more difficult than that. Whether such a Bill would get a parliamentary majority I have no idea. The Remain wing of all parties would be faced with slapping down the referendum majority and the subsequent political problems that would cause them and most of us. So it might even get approved.

Though repealing that particular Act might cause all kinds of problems with all kinds of legislation passed since then as well. I suppose a catch-all clause along the lines of "this also repeals any legislation that involves any agreements with the EU concerning anything at all, and any legislation that implements EU Directives, policy or requirements" might be inserted. Or something more complex, but there'd need to be an awful lot of care in the drafting and I suspect the courts could be kept quite busy afterwards deciding what the UK's law now actually is.

Don't know if this has been mentioned before but there is a movement to prevent TM using the royal prerogative to short-circuit a parliamentary debate.

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/par ... ld-decide/

No Act is required to leave the EU.

Don't believe me?

The Professors of Public law at Oxford and Cambridge both agree.

SpinningHugo wrote:No Act is required to leave the EU.

Don't believe me?

The Professors of Public law at Oxford and Cambridge both agree.

No.

Because you haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion, an assertion presented as a statement of fact. Sloppy work for such an eager legal beagle as yourself.

I'm happy to find that you are correct. I'm less happy at being condescended to in the first place. Even a little caveat along the lines of "I understand that", and perhaps naming said Professors, would ease the bloody irritation.

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgAi.aspx?id=18355&LLL=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Agenda item
Disabled Persons Freedom Pass Review: Draft criteria for assessment and next steps for implementation



They were facing a legal challenge,for those unaware.

SpinningHugo wrote:No Act is required to leave the EU.

Don't believe me?

The Professors of Public law at Oxford and Cambridge both agree.

I'm happy to believe you (though,
can't find anything where they say this),
but thought it odd that gvt. would then complicate things by needing an act to annul the 1972 communities act, which would then need parliaments approval.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 07651.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Almost 80,000 families a year could be homeless by 2020, warns former Labour housing minister


Other housing experts saying very much an understimation.

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/housing-net ... um=twitter

Housing associations should fight harder to end the abuse of women
Which other organisations get such unfettered access to a person’s home? Here is how we’ve overhauled the way our housing association tackles domestic abuse

EVERYONE should fight harder to end the abuse of women.